From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To: Jonathan Gopel <jgopel@gmail.com>
Cc: andreas.noever@gmail.com, westeri@kernel.org,
YehezkelShB@gmail.com, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thunderbolt: Do not RPM complete unrelated subtrees on unplug
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2026 14:02:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261004120255.GI176164@black.igk.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261004022604.359663-1-jgopel@gmail.com>
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 03, 2026 at 08:26:04PM -0600, Jonathan Gopel wrote:
> When a Thunderbolt device is unplugged, that switch and every switch
> subsequent to it on the bus device list is `complete()`d, not just its
> child devices. In the case of multiple domains, it may cause, eg, an
> attempt to `complete()` the uninitialized domain 1 root switch RPM
> completion on unplug of a switch from domain 0 (though ordering is not
> guaranteed numerically sorted).
Good catch!
> I initially noticed this issue on a Dell XPS9720 when the system would
> seem to sporadically not wake after unplugging a Thunderbolt dock. I
> tried multiple kernel versions including v7.2.7 and v7.3-rc4 to see if
> that resolved the issue, but the issue persisted. Eventually I found
> that I could consistently generate a kernel Oops reporting a page fault
> at 0xffff_ffff_ffff_fff8 on unplug from one side of the laptop and went
> bug hunting. I became suspicious of the `bus_for_each_dev()` walk that I
> ultimately ended up changing. To confirm this issue, I did an eBPF trace
> of `bus_for_each_dev()`, `complete_rpm()`, and `complete()` while
> unplugging in a variety of situations and found that an unplug from
> domain 0 tries to `complete_rpm()` domain 1's switch, whose RPM
> completion is not initialized and thus is holding a null wait-list
> pointer, triggering the page fault.
>
> Here are the key sections of that eBPF trace. Note that HEAD denotes the
> completion's own wait-list HEAD:
>
> ```
> RESCAN_ENTER domain=0
>
> COMPLETE rescan_domain=0 target=0-1 target_domain=0
> route=0x1 parent=0-0 unplugged=1
> COMPLETION done=0 head=HEAD next=HEAD prev=HEAD
>
> BUS_WALK domain=0 start=0-1 callback=complete_rpm
> CALLBACK_ENTER rescan_domain=0 dev=1-0 parent=domain1 is_switch=1
>
> COMPLETE rescan_domain=0 target=1-0 target_domain=1
> route=0x0 parent=domain1 unplugged=0
> COMPLETION done=0 head=HEAD next=0 prev=0
>
> complete+5
> complete_rpm+43
> bus_for_each_dev+133
> icm_free_unplugged_children+250
> icm_rescan_work+42
> ```
>
> To fix this, I have reused some of the adjacent logic to recursively
> walk and `complete()` only the unplugged switch and its descendants.
>
> I only have a single system with multiple Thunderbolt domains - the Dell
> XPS9720. I am consistently able to reproduce the Oops on that system.
> Since running with this patch, I have not seen the Oops reoccur. I have
> also tested it on a Thinkpad X1-Gen12, and that system boots and runs
> well with it, but it only has a single Thunderbolt domain, so it does
> not exercise the multi-domain failure case.
This looks like LLM was involved and if that's the case then please add
Assisted-by: LLM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Gopel <jgopel@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c | 16 +++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c b/drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c
> index 669807f0eaf8..d6801d8b669b 100644
> --- a/drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c
> +++ b/drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c
> @@ -2068,13 +2068,16 @@ static void icm_unplug_children(struct tb_switch *sw)
> }
> }
>
> -static int complete_rpm(struct device *dev, void *data)
> +static void complete_rpm(struct tb_switch *sw)
> {
> - struct tb_switch *sw = tb_to_switch(dev);
> + struct tb_port *port;
So instead of this, just check that sw->tb matches what you pass in..
>
> - if (sw)
> - complete(&sw->rpm_complete);
> - return 0;
> + complete(&sw->rpm_complete);
> +
> + tb_switch_for_each_port(sw, port) {
> + if (tb_port_has_remote(port))
> + complete_rpm(port->remote->sw);
> + }
> }
>
> static void remove_unplugged_switch(struct tb_switch *sw)
> @@ -2088,8 +2091,7 @@ static void remove_unplugged_switch(struct tb_switch *sw)
> * tb_switch_remove() calls pm_runtime_get_sync() that then waits
> * for it.
> */
> - complete_rpm(&sw->dev, NULL);
> - bus_for_each_dev(&tb_bus_type, &sw->dev, NULL, complete_rpm);
.. here pass sw->tb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-04 12:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-04 2:26 Jonathan Gopel
2026-10-04 12:02 ` Mika Westerberg [this message]
2026-10-04 17:11 ` Jonathan Gopel
2026-10-05 4:30 ` Mika Westerberg
2026-10-04 17:13 ` [PATCH v2] " Jonathan Gopel
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=20261004120255.GI176164@black.igk.intel.com \
--to=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=YehezkelShB@gmail.com \
--cc=andreas.noever@gmail.com \
--cc=jgopel@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=westeri@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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®