From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Abhin Parekadan Jose <abhinjoses@gmail.com>
Cc: "Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
"Lukas Wunner" <lukas@wunner.de>,
"Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com>,
"Shuai Xue" <xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com>,
"Kees Cook" <kees@kernel.org>,
"Mahesh J Salgaonkar" <mahesh@linux.ibm.com>,
"Oliver O'Halloran" <oohall@gmail.com>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 0/5] PCI: pciehp: Report surprise removal during safe removal
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 16:28:55 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261012162837-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <as0uFfzw83f9aPpn@home-desktop>
On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 08:59:33PM +0200, Abhin Parekadan Jose wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 02:32:02AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2026 at 07:39:34AM +0200, Abhin Parekadan Jose wrote:
> > > Gentle ping on this RFC.
> > >
> > > Lukas, Bjorn, could you let me know whether the general direction is
> > > acceptable before I work on a non-RFC version? Any comments on the
> > > approach would help.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Abhin
> >
> > I'd say, complete the picture. acpi,shpc,polling...
>
> Ok.
>
> >
> > Maybe think about how this interacts with pci_ignore_hotplug
> > (seems to weirdly check presence then ignore)?
>
> Yeah, the order is wrong in v4. The presence read should come after
> the `ignore_hotplug` check. Will fix.
> (Need to still find out why this was introduced. Looks like only the GPU drivers
> use it.)
>
> >
> > And test with virtio not with edu.
>
> Bjorn had asked me to keep this puerly PCI[1], So I had decoupled it from the
> virtio changes. I could post another series with those changes with a dependecy
> to this series.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260826194815.GA1552818@bhelgaas/
yea sure.
> >
> > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2026 at 06:20:11PM +0000, Abhin Parekadan Jose wrote:
> > > > If a safe removal is already in progress when the device is surprise
> > > > removed, pciehp cannot report the disconnect [1]. The removal blocks
> > > > waiting on a device interrupt or status read, and pciehp's IRQ thread is
> > > > single-threaded and is itself executing that removal, so it never runs
> > > > again to report the device gone. The removal hangs indefinitely.
> > > >
> > > > pciehp_isr() does run while the IRQ thread is blocked, but pciehp_ist()
> > > > must ignore link and presence changes caused by Secondary Bus Reset or
> > > > DPC, and telling those apart takes seconds which cannot be spent in
> > > > hardirq.
> > > >
> > > > Patch 4 does not do that work in hardirq. pciehp_isr() only checks
> > > > whether the card is present or the link is active, and defers the rest
> > > > to a work item in process context. The work item does not need to know
> > > > why the link changed, only whether the card is gone: it waits for DPC
> > > > recovery or a Secondary Bus Reset in progress to complete, then checks
> > > > again under reset_lock, and if the card is absent and the link is down
> > > > marks the devices below disconnected, which schedules the driver's
> > > > disconnect work from patch 1. pciehp_ist() is unchanged and
> > > > remains the only consumer of the one-shot flags PCI_DPC_RECOVERED and
> > > > PCI_LINK_CHANGED, which tell it whether a link change can be ignored.
> > > >
> > > > Patches:
> > > >
> > > > 1/5 Michael's "PCI: Report surprise removal event" from his RFC v5,
> > > > which adds disconnect_work_enable and pdev->disconnect_work.
> > > > Changed to serialize disconnect_work_enable with a per-device
> > > > spinlock.
> > > >
> > > > 2/5 Add pci_hp_wait_link_change(), which awaits a Secondary Bus Reset
> > > > in progress without consuming PCI_LINK_CHANGED.
> > > >
> > > > 3/5 Add pci_dpc_wait_recovery(), which awaits DPC recovery without
> > > > consuming PCI_DPC_RECOVERED.
> > > >
> > > > 4/5 The pciehp change. Adds disconnect_work to struct controller,
> > > > scheduled from pciehp_isr() on PDC or DLLSC when neither Presence
> > > > Detect State nor Data Link Layer Link Active indicates a card.
> >
> >
> > how about including the virtio patch? seems more relevant than
> > fooling around with edu.
> >
> > > > 5/5 A POC driver for the QEMU edu device that blocks in remove()
> > > > waiting for an interrupt, standing in for del_gendisk() stuck in
> > > > blk_mq_freeze_queue_wait(). Not for merge -- included so the
> > > > hang can be reproduced.
> > > >
> > > > Changes since RFC v3 [5]:
> > > >
> > > > - 5/5: Reinitialize the completion in remove() before requesting the
> > > > delayed interrupt, so that an earlier completion cannot let remove()
> > > > return while the interrupt is still pending. (Sashiko)
> > > > - 1/5 to 4/5: No changes.
> > > >
> > > > Changes since RFC v2 [4]:
> > > >
> > > > - 1/5: Protect disconnect_work_enable with a per-device spinlock, held
> > > > while testing it and scheduling the work, instead of lockless
> > > > accesses and barriers. pci_dev_set_disconnected() could otherwise
> > > > test the flag, get preempted, and queue the work while a newly bound
> > > > driver re-initializes it. With the lock, cancel_work_sync() is
> > > > sufficient again, so go back to it from disable_work_sync().
> > > > (Sashiko)
> > > > - 2/5: Test PCI_LINK_CHANGING with test_bit_acquire(), so that the
> > > > caller's subsequent accesses are ordered after the end of the code
> > > > section even if wait_event() returns without sleeping. (Sashiko)
> > > > - 3/5, 4/5, 5/5: No changes.
> > > >
> > > > Changes since RFC v1 [2]:
> > > >
> > > > - 1/5: Use disable_work_sync() instead of cancel_work_sync() in
> > > > pci_clear_disconnect_work(), so that a racing schedule_work() cannot
> > > > queue the work after remove() has returned. (Sashiko)
> > > > - 2/5, 3/5: New.
> > > > - 4/5: Drop schedule_notification_work(); pci_dev_set_disconnected()
> > > > schedules the driver's disconnect work for all callers again.
> > > > (Michael)
> > > > - 4/5: Don't consume PCI_DPC_RECOVERED and PCI_LINK_CHANGED in the
> > > > work item. In v1 it ran the same spurious link change test as
> > > > pciehp_ist(), and whichever ran first took the flags, so pciehp_ist()
> > > > could tear down a device that was only reset. (Sashiko)
> > > > - 4/5: Check presence with pciehp_card_present_or_link_active() in
> > > > both pciehp_isr() and the work item, as pciehp_ist() does, so that a
> > > > port with Presence Detect State hardwired to zero is not mistaken
> > > > for an empty slot.
> > > > - 4/5: Return early from the work item if pciehp_ist() has already
> > > > taken the pending events, and treat a read error of the presence
> > > > check as "not present". (Sashiko)
> > > > - 4/5: In pciehp_isr(), check presence before dropping the runtime PM
> > > > reference on the port's parent. In the work item, take a runtime PM
> > > > reference and check presence under reset_lock, since a slot reset
> > > > may make Presence Detect State and Link Active flap.
> > > > - 5/5: Build only with CONFIG_EDU_SRPOC, which depends on PCI; don't
> > > > claim the interrupt when the device reads all ones; clear bus
> > > > mastering on teardown. (Sashiko)
> > > >
> > > > Testing
> > > >
> > > > Reproducing this needs QEMU changes, since neither device_del nor the
> > > > attention button produces a true surprise removal. A branch with both
> > > > is here [3]:
> > > >
> > > > - a delayed-IRQ register on the edu device (BAR0 0x30, write N ms)
> > > > - a pcie_surprise_del monitor command that drops the device and
> > > > generates PDC=1, DLLSC=1, PDS=0
> > > >
> > > > Both tests use:
> > > >
> > > > ./qemu-system-aarch64 -machine virt,gic-version=3 -cpu cortex-a57 \
> > > > -m 512 -smp 2 -kernel Image -initrd initramfs.cpio.gz \
> > > > -device pcie-root-port,id=rp1,chassis=1,slot=1 \
> > > > -device edu,bus=rp1,id=edu0 -append "console=ttyAMA0 rdinit=/init" \
> > > > -nographic -monitor unix:/tmp/qemu-mon.sock,server,nowait
> > > >
> > > > and need a guest kernel with CONFIG_EDU_SRPOC=y.
> > > >
> > > > Test 1 (Hang in remove() on a user thread, then surprise removal):
> > > >
> > > > guest# echo 1 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:01:00.0/remove &
> > > > host$ echo "pcie_surprise_del edu0" | socat - unix-connect:/tmp/qemu-mon.sock
> > > >
> > > > This is the case patch 1 solves on its own: pciehp's IRQ thread is
> > > > free and handles the removal.
> > > >
> > > > Test 2 (Hang in remove() on pciehp's IRQ thread, then surprise removal):
> > > >
> > > > guest# echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/slots/1/power &
> > > > host$ echo "pcie_surprise_del edu0" | socat - unix-connect:/tmp/qemu-mon.sock
> > > >
> > > > Without patch 4 the safe removal does not return until the delayed
> > > > interrupt fires 600 s later. With it,
> > > > pciehp_isr() schedules ctrl->disconnect_work, which marks the device
> > > > disconnected; the POC driver's disconnect work completes the wait and
> > > > remove() proceeds.
> > > >
> > > > Open questions
> > > >
> > > > - Is this a viable approach?
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aHlZE18kPuHuDtTT@wunner.de/
> > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260905183905.997833-1-abhinjoses@gmail.com/
> > > > [3] https://gitlab.com/abhinkop/qemu/-/commits/suprise-removal
> > > > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260927165459.829900-1-abhinjoses@gmail.com/
> > > > [5] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260927175203.928270-1-abhinjoses@gmail.com/
> > > >
> > > > Assisted-by: LLM
> > > >
> > > > Abhin Parekadan Jose (4):
> > > > PCI: pciehp: Add pci_hp_wait_link_change()
> > > > PCI/DPC: Add pci_dpc_wait_recovery()
> > > > PCI: pciehp: Report surprise removal from pciehp_isr()
> > > > misc: Add edu_srpoc surprise removal POC driver
> > > >
> > > > Michael S. Tsirkin (1):
> > > > PCI: Report surprise removal event
> > > >
> > > > drivers/misc/Kconfig | 11 ++
> > > > drivers/misc/Makefile | 1 +
> > > > drivers/misc/edu_srpoc.c | 172 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > drivers/pci/hotplug/pci_hotplug_core.c | 21 ++-
> > > > drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp.h | 1 +
> > > > drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c | 67 ++++++++++
> > > > drivers/pci/pci.h | 10 ++
> > > > drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c | 54 ++++++--
> > > > drivers/pci/probe.c | 1 +
> > > > include/linux/pci.h | 57 ++++++++
> > > > 10 files changed, 381 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > > > create mode 100644 drivers/misc/edu_srpoc.c
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > base-commit: fd179f8a05be3ccae366b9b96e176b51fbe54aab
> > > > --
> > > > 2.51.1
> > > >
> >
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-12 20:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-27 18:20 Abhin Parekadan Jose
2026-09-27 18:20 ` [PATCH RFC v4 1/5] PCI: Report surprise removal event Abhin Parekadan Jose
2026-09-27 18:20 ` [PATCH RFC v4 2/5] PCI: pciehp: Add pci_hp_wait_link_change() Abhin Parekadan Jose
2026-09-27 18:20 ` [PATCH RFC v4 3/5] PCI/DPC: Add pci_dpc_wait_recovery() Abhin Parekadan Jose
2026-09-27 18:20 ` [PATCH RFC v4 4/5] PCI: pciehp: Report surprise removal from pciehp_isr() Abhin Parekadan Jose
2026-09-27 18:20 ` [PATCH RFC v4 5/5] misc: Add edu_srpoc surprise removal POC driver Abhin Parekadan Jose
2026-10-12 5:39 ` [PATCH RFC v4 0/5] PCI: pciehp: Report surprise removal during safe removal Abhin Parekadan Jose
2026-10-12 6:32 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2026-10-12 18:59 ` Abhin Parekadan Jose
2026-10-12 20:28 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
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=20261012162837-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=abhinjoses@gmail.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=mahesh@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=oohall@gmail.com \
--cc=xueshuai@linux.alibaba.com \
/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®