From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, tj@kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
jiangshanlai@gmail.com, rafael@kernel.org, len.brown@intel.com,
pavel@ucw.cz, zwisler@kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
dave.jiang@intel.com, bvanassche@acm.org,
dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, brendanhiggins@google.com
Subject: Re: [driver-core PATCH v7 2/9] driver core: Establish clear order of operations for deferred probe and remove
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:40:38 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181130234038.GF28501@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <154345153672.18040.3771035148218843351.stgit@ahduyck-desk1.amr.corp.intel.com>
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 04:32:16PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> Add an additional bit flag to the device struct named async_probe. This
> additional flag allows us to guarantee ordering between probe and remove
> operations.
>
> This allows us to guarantee that if we execute a remove operation on a
> given interface it will not attempt to update the driver member
> asynchronously following the earlier operation. Previously this guarantee
> was not present and could result in us attempting to remove a driver from
> an interface only to have it attempt to attach the driver later when we
> finally complete the deferred asynchronous probe call.
>
> Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
This is the sort of corner case that is best if we had a test case for
it, as it is hard to reproduce and -- how do we know we won't regress
later? Not sure if it helps but we have lib/test_kmod.c and its
respective tools/testing/selftests/kmod/kmod.sh, a new enum kmod_test_case
might be in order for device emulation creeping up / disappearing
during a custom mock driver using async probe.
Yeah.. I know.. "yes this seems good but how about later"? While we're going
through the motions here and have your attention on this I think it
would be valuable for this now. This is the sort of code that won't
change often, but if modified *can* really break things badly.
Luis
> ---
> drivers/base/dd.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/device.h | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/dd.c b/drivers/base/dd.c
> index 88713f182086..ef3f70a7cb5a 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/dd.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/dd.c
> @@ -774,6 +774,10 @@ static void __device_attach_async_helper(void *_dev, async_cookie_t cookie)
>
> device_lock(dev);
>
> + /* nothing to do if async_probe has been cleared */
> + if (!dev->async_probe)
> + goto out_unlock;
> +
> if (dev->parent)
> pm_runtime_get_sync(dev->parent);
>
> @@ -785,6 +789,9 @@ static void __device_attach_async_helper(void *_dev, async_cookie_t cookie)
> if (dev->parent)
> pm_runtime_put(dev->parent);
>
> + /* We made our attempt at an async_probe, clear the flag */
> + dev->async_probe = false;
> +out_unlock:
> device_unlock(dev);
>
> put_device(dev);
> @@ -829,6 +836,7 @@ static int __device_attach(struct device *dev, bool allow_async)
> */
> dev_dbg(dev, "scheduling asynchronous probe\n");
> get_device(dev);
> + dev->async_probe = true;
> async_schedule(__device_attach_async_helper, dev);
> } else {
> pm_request_idle(dev);
> @@ -929,6 +937,14 @@ static void __device_release_driver(struct device *dev, struct device *parent)
> {
> struct device_driver *drv;
>
> + /*
> + * In the event that we are asked to release the driver on an
> + * interface that is still waiting on a probe we can just terminate
> + * the probe by setting async_probe to false. When the async call
> + * is finally completed it will see this state and just exit.
> + */
> + dev->async_probe = false;
> +
> drv = dev->driver;
> if (drv) {
> while (device_links_busy(dev)) {
> diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h
> index 1b25c7a43f4c..4d2eb2c74149 100644
> --- a/include/linux/device.h
> +++ b/include/linux/device.h
> @@ -957,6 +957,8 @@ struct dev_links_info {
> * device.
> * @dma_coherent: this particular device is dma coherent, even if the
> * architecture supports non-coherent devices.
> + * @async_probe: This device has an asynchronous probe event pending. Should
> + * only be updated while holding device lock.
> *
> * At the lowest level, every device in a Linux system is represented by an
> * instance of struct device. The device structure contains the information
> @@ -1051,6 +1053,7 @@ struct device {
> defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYNC_DMA_FOR_CPU_ALL)
> bool dma_coherent:1;
> #endif
> + bool async_probe:1;
> };
>
> static inline struct device *kobj_to_dev(struct kobject *kobj)
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-30 23:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-29 0:32 [driver-core PATCH v7 0/9] Add NUMA aware async_schedule calls Alexander Duyck
2018-11-29 0:32 ` [driver-core PATCH v7 1/9] driver core: Move async_synchronize_full call Alexander Duyck
2018-11-30 23:21 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-11-29 0:32 ` [driver-core PATCH v7 2/9] driver core: Establish clear order of operations for deferred probe and remove Alexander Duyck
2018-11-29 1:57 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-29 18:07 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-29 18:55 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-29 21:53 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-29 22:00 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-30 23:40 ` Luis Chamberlain [this message]
2018-11-29 0:32 ` [driver-core PATCH v7 3/9] device core: Consolidate locking and unlocking of parent and device Alexander Duyck
2018-12-01 0:01 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-11-29 0:32 ` [driver-core PATCH v7 4/9] driver core: Probe devices asynchronously instead of the driver Alexander Duyck
2018-12-01 2:48 ` Luis Chamberlain
2018-12-03 16:44 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-29 0:32 ` [driver-core PATCH v7 5/9] workqueue: Provide queue_work_node to queue work near a given NUMA node Alexander Duyck
2018-11-29 0:32 ` [driver-core PATCH v7 6/9] async: Add support for queueing on specific " Alexander Duyck
2018-11-29 0:32 ` [driver-core PATCH v7 7/9] driver core: Attach devices on CPU local to device node Alexander Duyck
2018-11-29 0:32 ` [driver-core PATCH v7 8/9] PM core: Use new async_schedule_dev command Alexander Duyck
2018-11-29 0:32 ` [driver-core PATCH v7 9/9] libnvdimm: Schedule device registration on node local to the device Alexander Duyck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181130234038.GF28501@garbanzo.do-not-panic.com \
--to=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com \
--cc=brendanhiggins@google.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=zwisler@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome