[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/xenbus: Use 'void' instead of 'int' for the return of xenbus_switch_state()
On 29/09/14 16:40, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 03:17:10PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 29/09/14 15:02, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 12:36:42AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote: >>>> When xenbus_switch_state() fails, it will call xenbus_switch_fatal() >>> >>> Only on the first depth, not on the subsequent ones (as in if >>> the first xenbus_switch_fail fails, it won't try to call >>> xenbus_switch_state again and again). >>> >>>> internally, so need not return any status value, then use 'void' instead >>>> of 'int' for xenbus_switch_state() and __xenbus_switch_state(). >>> >>> When that switch occurs (to XenbusStateConnected) won't the watches >>> fire - meaning we MUST make sure that the watch functions - if they >>> use the xenbus_switch_state() they MUST not hold any locks - because >>> they could be executed once more? >>> >>> Oh wait, we don't have to worry about that right now as the callbacks >>> that pick up the messages from the XenBus are all gated on one mutex >>> anyhow. >>> >>> Hm, anyhow, I would add this extra piece of information to the patch: >>> >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/xen-pciback/xenbus.c >>> b/drivers/xen/xen-pciback/xenbus.c >>> index c214daa..f7399fd 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/xen/xen-pciback/xenbus.c >>> +++ b/drivers/xen/xen-pciback/xenbus.c >>> @@ -661,6 +661,12 @@ static void xen_pcibk_be_watch(struct xenbus_watch >>> *watch, >>> >>> switch (xenbus_read_driver_state(pdev->xdev->nodename)) { >>> case XenbusStateInitWait: >>> + /* >>> + * xenbus_switch_state can call xenbus_switch_fatal which will >>> + * immediately set the state to XenbusStateClosing which >>> + * means if we were reading for it here we MUST drop any >>> + * locks so that we don't dead-lock. >>> + */ >> >> Watches are asynchronous and serialised by the xenwatch thread. I can't >> see what deadlock you're talking about here. Particularly since the >> backend doesn't watch its own state node (it watches the frontend one). >> >>> xen_pcibk_setup_backend(pdev); >>> break; >>> >>>> >>>> Also need be sure that all callers which check the return value must let >>>> 'err' be 0. >>> >>> I am bit uncomfortable with that, that is due to: >>> >>> >>> .. snip.. >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c >>>> b/drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c >>>> index 9c47b89..b5c3d47 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c >>>> @@ -337,10 +337,7 @@ static int netback_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev, >>>> if (err) >>>> pr_debug("Error writing multi-queue-max-queues\n"); >>>> >>>> - err = xenbus_switch_state(dev, XenbusStateInitWait); >>>> - if (err) >>>> - goto fail; >>>> - >>>> + xenbus_switch_state(dev, XenbusStateInitWait); >>> >>> Which if it fails it won't call: >>> >>> 354 fail: >>> >>> 355 pr_debug("failed\n"); >>> >>> 356 netback_remove(dev); >>> >>> 357 return err; >>> >>> >>> And since there is no watch on the backend state to go in Closing it won't >>> ever call those and we leak memory. >> >> It's not leaking the memory. All resources will be recovered when the >> device is removed. > > I presume you mean when the XenBus entries are torn down? It does look > like it would call the .remove functionality. That should take care of that. > > In which case we can just remove all of the 'netback_remove()' and also > remove some of the labels. No. If the final xenbus_switch_state() fails then at least the device is in a consistent state, waiting for the other end to notice. We don't want to return success from a probe with a half-setup device. David _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |