[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] bus/vdev: reduce scope of device list lock
Burakov, Anatoly
anatoly.burakov at intel.com
Tue May 22 11:05:11 CEST 2018
On 21-May-18 5:11 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> The lock vdev_device_list_lock was taken before calling
> "remove" function for the device.
> So it prevents to remove sub-devices (as in failsafe) inside
> its own "remove" function, because of a deadlock.
>
> The lock is now only protecting the device list inside
> the bus driver.
>
> Fixes: 35f462839b69 ("bus/vdev: add lock on device list")
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>
> ---
> drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c | 10 ++++------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c b/drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c
> index 099b9ff85..2fbc86806 100644
> --- a/drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/bus/vdev/vdev.c
> @@ -293,25 +293,23 @@ rte_vdev_uninit(const char *name)
> if (name == NULL)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - rte_spinlock_lock(&vdev_device_list_lock);
> -
> dev = find_vdev(name);
> if (!dev) {
> ret = -ENOENT;
> - goto unlock;
> + return ret;
> }
Without that lock, all of this would be racy - find_dev would iterate a
tailq that might change under its feet, and tailq_remove may be called
with a pointer that has already been removed.
How about changing the lock to a recursive lock? Failsafe would be
removing devices from within the same thread, correct?
>
> ret = vdev_remove_driver(dev);
> if (ret)
> - goto unlock;
> + return ret;
>
> + rte_spinlock_lock(&vdev_device_list_lock);
> TAILQ_REMOVE(&vdev_device_list, dev, next);
> devargs = dev->device.devargs;
> rte_devargs_remove(devargs->bus->name, devargs->name);
> free(dev);
> -
> -unlock:
> rte_spinlock_unlock(&vdev_device_list_lock);
> +
> return ret;
> }
>
>
--
Thanks,
Anatoly
More information about the dev
mailing list