[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v5 1/4] igb: add support of RX network flow classification

[Matt Porter]

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:09:04PM +0000, Brown, Aaron F wrote:
> > From: Intel-wired-lan [mailto:intel-wired-lan-bounces at lists.osuosl.org] On
> > Behalf Of Gangfeng
> > Sent: Monday, May 9, 2016 2:28 AM
> > To: intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org
> > Cc: Gangfeng Huang <gangfeng.huang at ni.com>; Ruhao Gao
> > <ruhao.gao at ni.com>
> > Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next v5 1/4] igb: add support of RX
> > network flow classification
> > 
> > From: Gangfeng Huang <gangfeng.huang at ni.com>
> > 
> > This patch is meant to allow for RX network flow classification to insert
> > and remove Rx filter by ethtool. Ethtool interface has it's own rules
> > manager
> > 
> > Show all filters:
> > $ ethtool -n eth0
> > 4 RX rings available
> > Total 2 rules
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ruhao Gao <ruhao.gao at ni.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Gangfeng Huang <gangfeng.huang at ni.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb.h         |  32 +++++
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_ethtool.c | 193
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c    |  44 ++++++
> >  3 files changed, 269 insertions(+)
> 
> This patch is causing 3/4 of my regression systems to fail.  Driver load seems normal, but applying an IP address via ifconfig causes the following splat in dmesg and /var/log/messages:

Hi Aaron,

I'm looking at this series on current net-next and am wondering if you
saw this issue with just patch 1 applied or you meant the entire series?

I've been working with this on an i210 and haven't reproduced your
results yet either with just the (non-functional) first patch applied or
the entire series. However, I noticed you had no problems on your system
with an i210.

> ----------------------------------------------
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: Hardware name: Supermicro A1SAi/A1SRi, BIOS 1.0b 11/06/2013
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: 0000000000000000 ffff880849ad3938 ffffffff813373d7 0000000000000007
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: 0000000000000006 0000000000000000 ffff88085c2f6770 ffff880849ad3a58
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: ffffffff810c4e13 ffff880849ad39f8 0000000000000005 0000000000000000
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: Call Trace:
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff813373d7>] dump_stack+0x6b/0xa4
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff810c4e13>] register_lock_class+0x523/0x5c0
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff8136644b>] ? check_preemption_disabled+0x1b/0x110
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff811f5655>] ? kfree+0x1a5/0x3a0
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff81366553>] ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff810c7ae0>] __lock_acquire+0x80/0x5d0
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff811f83f5>] ? __kmalloc+0x265/0x3a0
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffffa051864f>] ? kzalloc+0xf/0x20 [igb]
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff810c80fa>] lock_acquire+0xca/0x240
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffffa0520c3f>] ? igb_configure+0xaf/0x1d0 [igb]
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff815b958b>] ? netdev_rss_key_fill+0x5b/0xa0
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffffa052dfb9>] ? igb_vfta_set+0x189/0x1f0 [igb]
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff816a8930>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x80
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffffa0520c3f>] ? igb_configure+0xaf/0x1d0 [igb]
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffffa051bf62>] ? igb_setup_rctl+0x22/0xb0 [igb]
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffffa0520c3f>] igb_configure+0xaf/0x1d0 [igb]
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffffa052408d>] __igb_open+0xfd/0x300 [igb]
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff815ab260>] ? call_netdevice_notifiers_info+0x40/0x70
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffffa0524420>] igb_open+0x10/0x20 [igb]
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff815ac7f8>] __dev_open+0xb8/0x110
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff815ac5fc>] __dev_change_flags+0xac/0x180
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff815ac700>] dev_change_flags+0x30/0x70
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff815c6685>] ? lockdep_rtnl_is_held+0x15/0x20
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff816403a5>] devinet_ioctl+0x5b5/0x620
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff81156660>] ? trace_buffer_unlock_commit+0x60/0x80
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff81643033>] inet_ioctl+0x63/0x80
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff8158fd60>] sock_do_ioctl+0x30/0x70
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff815901b3>] sock_ioctl+0x73/0x280
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff8121f678>] vfs_ioctl+0x18/0x30
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff81220057>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x87/0x430
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff8100297e>] ? syscall_trace_enter_phase2+0x6e/0x280
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff81220492>] SyS_ioctl+0x92/0xa0
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff81002fd3>] do_syscall_64+0x63/0x130
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff8100201b>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1b/0x1d
> May 16 14:37:50 u1486 kernel: [<ffffffff816a981a>] entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path+0x25/0x25
> ----------------------------------------------

Since it's doing dump_stack in register_lock_class it appears some of
the error has been truncated before this stack trace. Can you confirm
that this is the complete output logged? By inspection, I would expect
to see one of the contextual messages from register_lock_class when it
calls dump_stack.

Also, any chance of seeing a .config for this run or a freshly
reproduced run? By inspection at least there's no obvious locking or
otherwise issues in the open path (only *filter_restore() is executed on
open and it's a mostly a NOP if this is just patch 1 applied) so I think
we need some more detailed output since you have the only system that seems
to produce this issue.

Any other details you can provide would be appreciated. I'm happy to dig
into the root cause.

Thanks,
Matt