From: Artemy Kovalyov <artemyko@nvidia.com>
To: <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "Thomas Monjalon" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"Ophir Munk" <ophirmu@nvidia.com>,
stable@dpdk.org, "Anatoly Burakov" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
"Stephen Hemminger" <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
"Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Subject: [PATCH] eal: fix memory initialization deadlock
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 13:33:03 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230830103303.2428995-1-artemyko@nvidia.com> (raw)
The issue arose due to the change in the DPDK read-write lock
implementation. That change added a new flag, RTE_RWLOCK_WAIT, designed
to prevent new read locks while a write lock is in the queue. However,
this change has led to a scenario where a recursive read lock, where a
lock is acquired twice by the same execution thread, can initiate a
sequence of events resulting in a deadlock:
Process 1 takes the first read lock.
Process 2 attempts to take a write lock, triggering RTE_RWLOCK_WAIT due
to the presence of a read lock. This makes process 2 enter a wait loop
until the read lock is released.
Process 1 tries to take a second read lock. However, since a write lock
is waiting (due to RTE_RWLOCK_WAIT), it also enters a wait loop until
the write lock is acquired and then released.
Both processes end up in a blocked state, unable to proceed, resulting
in a deadlock scenario.
Following these changes, the RW-lock no longer supports
recursion, implying that a single thread shouldn't obtain a read lock if
it already possesses one. The problem arises during initialization: the
rte_eal_init() function acquires the memory_hotplug_lock, and later on,
the sequence of calls rte_eal_memory_init() -> eal_memalloc_init() ->
rte_memseg_list_walk() acquires it again without releasing it. This
scenario introduces the risk of a potential deadlock when concurrent
write locks are applied to the same memory_hotplug_lock. To address this
we resolved the issue by replacing rte_memseg_list_walk() with
rte_memseg_list_walk_thread_unsafe().
Bugzilla ID: 1277
Fixes: 832cecc03d77 ("rwlock: prevent readers from starving writers")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Artemy Kovalyov <artemyko@nvidia.com>
---
lib/eal/include/generic/rte_rwlock.h | 4 ++++
lib/eal/linux/eal_memalloc.c | 7 +++++--
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_rwlock.h b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_rwlock.h
index 9e083bbc61..c98fc7d083 100644
--- a/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_rwlock.h
+++ b/lib/eal/include/generic/rte_rwlock.h
@@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ rte_rwlock_init(rte_rwlock_t *rwl)
/**
* Take a read lock. Loop until the lock is held.
*
+ * @note The RW lock isn't recursive, so calling this function on the same
+ * lock twice without releasing it could potentially result in a deadlock
+ * scenario when a write lock is involved.
+ *
* @param rwl
* A pointer to a rwlock structure.
*/
diff --git a/lib/eal/linux/eal_memalloc.c b/lib/eal/linux/eal_memalloc.c
index f8b1588cae..3705b41f5f 100644
--- a/lib/eal/linux/eal_memalloc.c
+++ b/lib/eal/linux/eal_memalloc.c
@@ -1740,7 +1740,10 @@ eal_memalloc_init(void)
eal_get_internal_configuration();
if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_SECONDARY)
- if (rte_memseg_list_walk(secondary_msl_create_walk, NULL) < 0)
+ /* memory_hotplug_lock is taken in rte_eal_init(), so it's
+ * safe to call thread-unsafe version.
+ */
+ if (rte_memseg_list_walk_thread_unsafe(secondary_msl_create_walk, NULL) < 0)
return -1;
if (rte_eal_process_type() == RTE_PROC_PRIMARY &&
internal_conf->in_memory) {
@@ -1778,7 +1781,7 @@ eal_memalloc_init(void)
}
/* initialize all of the fd lists */
- if (rte_memseg_list_walk(fd_list_create_walk, NULL))
+ if (rte_memseg_list_walk_thread_unsafe(fd_list_create_walk, NULL))
return -1;
return 0;
}
--
2.25.1
next reply other threads:[~2023-08-30 10:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-30 10:33 Artemy Kovalyov [this message]
2023-08-30 19:13 ` Dmitry Kozlyuk
2023-09-04 8:24 ` [PATCH v2] " Artemy Kovalyov
2023-09-05 7:05 ` Dmitry Kozlyuk
2023-09-05 9:05 ` Artemy Kovalyov
2023-09-05 10:15 ` David Marchand
2023-09-06 9:52 ` [PATCH v3] " Artemy Kovalyov
2023-09-06 12:52 ` David Marchand
2023-09-08 13:17 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] " Artemy Kovalyov
2023-09-08 13:17 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] eal: " Artemy Kovalyov
2023-09-08 13:17 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] eal: annotate rte_memseg_list_walk() Artemy Kovalyov
2023-10-06 10:12 ` David Marchand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230830103303.2428995-1-artemyko@nvidia.com \
--to=artemyko@nvidia.com \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=ophirmu@nvidia.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).