Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 03:26:14 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 28 October 2015 at 03:15, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 04:20:51 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> >> On 27 October 2015 at 16:24, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> >> > Hi All,
> >> >
> >> > As discussed in the recent "On-demand device probing" thread and in a Kernel
> >> > Summit session earlier today, there is a problem with handling cases where
> >> > functional dependencies between devices are involved.
> >> >
> >> > What I mean by a "functional dependency" is when the driver of device B needs
> >> > both device A and its driver to be present and functional to be able to work.
> >> > This implies that the driver of A needs to be working for B to be probed
> >> > successfully and it cannot be unbound from the device before the B's driver.
> >> > This also has certain consequences for power management of these devices
> >> > (suspend/resume and runtime PM ordering).
> >> >
> >> > So I want to be able to represent those functional dependencies between devices
> >> > and I'd like the driver core to track them and act on them in certain cases
> >> > where they matter.  The argument for doing that in the driver core is that
> >> > there are quite a few distinct use cases related to that, they are relatively
> >> > hard to get right in a driver (if one wants to address all of them properly)
> >> > and it only gets worse if multiplied by the number of drivers potentially
> >> > needing to do it.  Morever, at least one case (asynchronous system suspend/resume)
> >> > cannot be handled in a single driver at all, because it requires the driver of A
> >> > to wait for B to suspend (during system suspend) and the driver of B to wait for
> >> > A to resume (during system resume).
> >> >
> >> > My idea is to represent a supplier-consumer dependency between devices (or
> >> > more precisely between device+driver combos) as a "link" object containing
> >> > pointers to the devices in question, a list node for each of them and some
> >> > additional information related to the management of those objects, ie.
> >> > something like:
> >> >
> >> > struct device_link {
> >> >         struct device *supplier;
> >> >         struct list_head supplier_node;
> >> >         struct device *consumer;
> >> >         struct list_head consumer_node;
> >> >         <flags, status etc>
> >> > };
> >> >
> >> > In general, there will be two lists of those things per device, one list
> >> > of links to consumers and one list of links to suppliers.
> >> >
> >> > In that picture, links will be created by calling, say:
> >> >
> >> > int device_add_link(struct device *me, struct device *my_supplier, unsigned int flags);
> >> >
> >> > and they will be deleted by the driver core when not needed any more.  The
> >> > creation of a link should also cause dpm_list and the list used during shutdown
> >> > to be reordered if needed.
> >> >
> >> > In principle, it seems usefult to consider two types of links, one created
> >> > at device registration time (when registering the second device from the linked
> >> > pair, whichever it is) and one created at probe time (of the consumer device).
> >> > I'll refer to them as "permanent" and "probe-time" links, respectively.
> >> >
> >> > The permanent links (created at device registration time) will stay around
> >> > until one of the linked devices is unregistered (at which time the driver
> >> > core will drop the link along with the device going away).  The probe-time
> >> > ones will be dropped (automatically) at the consumer device driver unbind time.
> >> >
> >> > There's a question about what if the supplier device is being unbound before
> >> > the consumer one (for example, as a result of a hotplug event).  My current
> >> > view on that is that the consumer needs to be force-unbound in that case too,
> >> > but I guess I may be persuaded otherwise given sufficiently convincing
> >> > arguments.  Anyway, there are reasons to do that, like for example it may
> >> > help with the synchronization.  Namely, if there's a rule that suppliers
> >> > cannot be unbound before any consumers linked to them, than the list of links
> >> > to suppliers for a consumer can only change at its registration/probe or
> >> > unbind/remove times (which simplifies things quite a bit).
> >> >
> >> > With that, the permanent links existing at the probe time for a consumer
> >> > device can be used to check whether or not to defer the probing of it
> >> > even before executing its probe callback.  In turn, system suspend
> >> > synchronization should be a matter of calling device_pm_wait_for_dev()
> >> > for all consumers of a supplier device, in analogy with dpm_wait_for_children(),
> >> > and so on.
> >> >
> >> > Of course, the new lists have to be stable during those operations and ensuring
> >> > that is going to be somewhat tricky (AFAICS right now at least), but apart from
> >> > that the whole concept looks reasonably straightforward to me.
> >> >
> >> > So, the question to everybody is whether or not this sounds reasonable or there
> >> > are concerns about it and if so what they are.  At this point I mostly need to
> >> > know if I'm not overlooking anything fundamental at the general level.
> >>
> >> Sounds really great to me at the conceptual level, but wonder if you
> >> have already thought of how the permanent links will be inferred.
> >
> > In ACPI there is a mechanism for that already.  In DT it would require walking
> > the phandle dependency graph I suppose.
> >
> > The point is, though, that it doesn't have to be mandatory to have any
> > permanent links created.  If you can find a dependency at device registration
> > time, great.  Create a permanent link for it and use it.  If you can't,
> > it's fine too.  You'll find it at probe time and create a link for it then.
> >
> >> When I looked at computing dependencies of a device before it's
> >> probed, the concern was that the code that finds the dependencies
> >> duplicated part of the logic when looking resources up. Because each
> >> subsystem has its own code for looking up dependencies for potentially
> >> each of DT, ACPI and board files, it will be a bit of a big task to
> >> refactor things to avoid that duplication. Fwnode could help with
> >> this, but it doesn't as of yet and I'm not sure if that's still the
> >> plan.
> >
> > That almost certainly is going to be a fair amount of work, but that
> > doesn't mean we should avoid doing it.  If it leads to better code
> > eventually, it's worth doing.
> >
> >> Also wonder if you have considered setting the permanent links also
> >> during probe, as the on-demand probe series did (device_add_link would
> >> be "sprinkled" around as of_device_probe was). That would avoid the
> >> problem with code duplication because the links would be established
> >> from the functions that do resource lookup.
> >
> > I have considered that, but at this point I have some concerns about
> > lifecycle management related to that.
> 
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> could you extend on why do you prefer inferring the permanent links
> before probe as opposed to collecting them during probe from the
> lookup functions?

Information that is already available at the device registration time should
be used at that time or it makes things harder to follow.

But that really is a tradeoff.  If collecting that information requires too
much effort, it may not be worth it.

> Also, have you considered that not only drivers request resources? For
> example, the on-demand probing series would probe a device that is
> needed by an initcall, simplifying synchronization.

You really need to explain what you mean here or maybe give an example.

Thanks,
Rafael