On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 20:36:15 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
quoted
How is RW semaphore going to solve the problem that ops are unlocked
and have to take the instance lock from within to add/remove ports?
This is three step process, but mainly it is first step. We need to make
sure that functions that can re-entry will use nested locks.
Steps:
1. Use proper locking API that supports nesting:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/YYABqfFy%2F%2Fg5Gdis@nanopsycho/T/#mf9dc5cac2013abe413545bbe4a09cc231ae209a4 (local)
Whether we provide the an unlocked API or allow lock nesting
on the driver API is not that important to me.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
2. Convert devlink->lock to be RW semaphore:
commit 4506dd3a90a82a0b6bde238f507907747ab88407
Author: Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref]
Date: Sun Oct 24 16:54:16 2021 +0300
devlink: Convert devlink lock to be RW semaphore
This is naive conversion of devlink->lock to RW semaphore, so we will be
able to differentiate commands that require exclusive access vs. parallel
ready-to-run ones.
All "set" commands that used devlink->lock are converted to write lock,
while all "get" commands are marked with read lock.
@@ -578,8 +584,12 @@ static int devlink_nl_pre_doit(const struct genl_ops *ops,
mutex_unlock(&devlink_mutex);
return PTR_ERR(devlink);
}
- if (~ops->internal_flags & DEVLINK_NL_FLAG_NO_LOCK)
- mutex_lock(&devlink->lock);
+
+ if (~ops->internal_flags & DEVLINK_NL_FLAG_SHARED_ACCESS)
+ down_write(&devlink->rwsem);
+ else
+ down_read(&devlink->rwsem);
+
IIUC the RW sem thing is an optimization, it's besides the point.
3. Drop devlink_mutex:
commit 3177af9971c4cd95f9633aeb9b0434687da62fd0
Author: Leon Romanovsky [off-list ref]
Date: Sun Oct 31 16:05:40 2021 +0200
devlink: Use xarray locking mechanism instead big devlink lock
The conversion to XArray together with devlink reference counting
allows us reuse the following locking pattern:
xa_lock()
xa_for_each() {
devlink_try_get()
xa_unlock()
....
xa_lock()
}
This pattern gives us a way to run any commands between xa_unlock() and
xa_lock() without big devlink mutex, while making sure that devlink instance
won't be released.
Yup, I think this part we agree on.
Steps 2 and 3 were not posted due to merge window and my desire to get
mileage in our regression.
:)
quoted
quoted
Please, let's not give up on standalone devlink implementation without
drivers need to know internal devlink details. It is hard to do but possible.
We may just disagree on this one. Please answer my question above -
so far IDK how you're going to fix the problem of re-reg'ing subobjects
from the reload path.
My experience writing drivers is that it was painfully unclear what
the devlink locking rules are. Sounds like you'd make them even more
complicated.
How? I have only one rule:
* Driver author should be aware that between devlink_register() and
devlink_unregister(), users can send netlink commands.
In your solution, driver authors will need to follow whole devlink
how-to-use book.
Only if they need refs. If you don't the API is the same as yours.
IOW you don't provide an API for advanced use cases at all. You force
the drivers to implement their own reference counting and locking.
I want them to just rely on devlink as a framework.
How many driver locks do you have in netdevsim after conversion?
All 3? How do you add a port to the instance from sysfs without a
AB / BA deadlock between the port lock and the devlink lock if the
driver can't take the devlink lock? Are you still going to need the
"in_reload" wart?
quoted
This RFC makes the rules simple - all devlink ops are locked.
For the convenience of the drivers they can also take the instance lock
whenever they want to prevent ops from being called. Experience with
rtnl_lock teaches us that this is very useful for drivers.
Strange, I see completely opposite picture in the git log with so much
changes that have Fixes line and add/remove/mention rtnl_lock. Maybe it
is useful, but almost all if not all drivers full of fixes of rtnl_lock
usage. I don't want same for the devlink.
If you don't provide a locking API to the drivers you'll have to fix 2x
the bugs, and each of them subtly different. At least maintainers know
what rtnl_lock rules are.