Ralph Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 04:56 -0700, Pradeep Satyanarayana wrote: >> Pradeep Satyanarayana wrote: >>> Pradeep Satyanarayana wrote: >>>> Roland Dreier wrote: >>>>> > I guess I came to a premature conclusion. One set of tests ran fine >>>>> and I made that >>>>> > conclusion. Another set of tests caused the following crash: >>>>> >>>>> I don't really know how to interpret this. Is this crash new, or is it >>>>> the same crash you were hoping this patch fixed? >>>> This is a new crash. >>> I see other manifestations resulting in different crashes : >>> >>> :mon> t >>> [c00000074603ba20] d0000000193527ac .ipoib_neigh_flush+0x6c/0x350 [ib_ipoib] >>> [c00000074603bb10] d000000019356dac .ipoib_mcast_free+0x74/0x2a0 [ib_ipoib] >>> [c00000074603bbe0] d000000019358558 .ipoib_mcast_restart_task+0x3d0/0x560 >>> [ib_ipoib] >>> [c00000074603bd40] c0000000000c6fe4 .run_workqueue+0xf4/0x1e0 >>> [c00000074603be00] c0000000000c7190 .worker_thread+0xc0/0x180 >>> [c00000074603bed0] c0000000000ccf4c .kthread+0xb4/0xc0 >>> [c00000074603bf90] c0000000000309fc .kernel_thread+0x54/0x70 >>> 9:mon> e >>> cpu 0x9: Vector: 300 (Data Access) at [c00000074603b720] >>> pc: c0000000005ac390: ._spin_lock+0x20/0xc8 >>> lr: d0000000193527ac: .ipoib_neigh_flush+0x6c/0x350 [ib_ipoib] >>> sp: c00000074603b9a0 >>> msr: 8000000000009032 >>> dar: 3a0 >>> dsisr: 40000000 >>> current = 0xc000000756ce8b00 >>> paca = 0xc000000000f63800 >>> pid = 18095, comm = ipoib >>> 9:mon> >> Recreating the crash has been tricky. I have tried several several hundred >> times today >> to unload and reload IPoIB while there is traffic and no crashes happened. I >> took >> a closer look at the IPoIB CM code and I see a few things that look >> suspicious. >> >> In the ipoib_cm_send() path no priv->lock is held, whereas the priv->lock is >> held before >> calling ipoib_cm_destroy_tx(). This is true with and without Ralph's patch >> (fix dangling pointer). >> Is this a potential race? > > ipoib_cm_send() is only called by ipoib_start_xmit() so it is protected > by netif_tx_lock(dev) or stopping the ipoib network device.
I still see one case in ipoib_neigh_cleanup() wherein ipoib_cm_destroy_tx() appears to be called without netif_tx_lock(dev) held. Is that correct? Thanks Pradeep -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
