[ Adding netdev as perhaps someone there knows ] On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 12:09:59 +0800 Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This CPU0 lock(_xmit_ETHER#2) -> hard IRQ -> lock(console_owner) is > > basically > > soft IRQ -> lock(_xmit_ETHER#2) -> hard IRQ -> printk() > > > > Then CPU1 spins on xmit, which is owned by CPU0, CPU0 spins on > > console_owner, which is owned by CPU1? It still looks to me that the target_list_lock is taken in IRQ, (which can be the case because printk calls write_msg() which takes that lock). And someplace there's a: lock(target_list_lock) lock(xmit_lock) which means you can remove the console lock from this scenario completely, and you still have a possible deadlock between target_list_lock and xmit_lock. > > > If this is true, it looks not a virtio-net specific issue but somewhere > else. > > I think all network driver will synchronize through bh instead of hardirq. I think the issue is where target_list_lock is held when we take xmit_lock. Is there anywhere in netconsole.c that can end up taking xmit_lock while holding the target_list_lock? If so, that's the problem. As target_list_lock is something that can be taken in IRQ context, which means *any* other lock that is taking while holding the target_list_lock must also protect against interrupts from happening while it they are held. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
