On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 8:53 AM Jinpu Wang <jinpu.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 8:26 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 07:50:13AM +0100, Jinpu Wang wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 3:35 AM Guoqing Jiang
> > > <guoqing.jiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/10/20 15:56, Jinpu Wang wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 5:45 PM Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If there are many establishments/teardowns, we need to make sure
> > > > >> we do not consume too much system memory. Thus let on going
> > > > >> session closing to finish before accepting new connection.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Inspired by commit 777dc82395de ("nvmet-rdma: occasionally flush ongoing controller teardown")
> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >> Reviewed-by: Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Please ignore this one, it could lead to deadlock, due to the fact
> > > > > cma_ib_req_handler is holding
> > > > > mutex_lock(&listen_id->handler_mutex) when calling into
> > > > > rtrs_rdma_connect, we call close_work which will call rdma_destroy_id,
> > > > > which
> > > > > could try to hold the same handler_mutex, so deadlock.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am wondering if nvmet-rdma has the similar issue or not, if so, maybe
> > > > introduce a locked version of rdma_destroy_id.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Guoqing
> > >
> > > No, I was wrong. I rechecked the code, it's not a valid deadlock, in
> > > cma_ib_req_handler, the conn_id is newly created in
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/infiniband/core/cma.c#L2185.
> > >
> > > Flush_workqueue will only flush close_work for any other cm_id, but
> > > not the newly created one conn_id, it has not associated with anything
> > > yet.
> > >
> > > The same applies to nvme-rdma. so it's a false alarm by lockdep.
> >
> > Leaving this without fix (proper lock annotation) is not right thing to
> > do, because everyone who runs rtrs code with LOCKDEP on will have same
> > "false alarm".
> >
> > So I recommend or not to take this patch or write it without LOCKDEP warning.
> Hi Leon,
>
> I'm thinking about the same, do you have a suggestion on how to teach
> LOCKDEP this is not really a deadlock,
> I do not know LOCKDEP well.
Found it myself, we can use lockdep_off
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c#L699
Thanks
>
> Thanks
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > >
> > > Regards!
> > > Jack
