From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ideasonboard.com>
To: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Francesco <francesco.dolcini@toradex.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
kernel-team@android.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jai Luthra <jai.luthra@ideasonboard.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] driver core: fw_devlink: Stop trying to optimize cycle detection logic
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 17:16:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <922c3edf-c52c-42ef-a096-e02f74e01f85@ideasonboard.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241030171009.1853340-1-saravanak@google.com>
Hi Saravana,
On 30/10/2024 19:10, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> In attempting to optimize fw_devlink runtime, I introduced numerous cycle
> detection bugs by foregoing cycle detection logic under specific
> conditions. Each fix has further narrowed the conditions for optimization.
>
> It's time to give up on these optimization attempts and just run the cycle
> detection logic every time fw_devlink tries to create a device link.
>
> The specific bug report that triggered this fix involved a supplier fwnode
> that never gets a device created for it. Instead, the supplier fwnode is
> represented by the device that corresponds to an ancestor fwnode.
>
> In this case, fw_devlink didn't do any cycle detection because the cycle
> detection logic is only run when a device link is created between the
> devices that correspond to the actual consumer and supplier fwnodes.
>
> With this change, fw_devlink will run cycle detection logic even when
> creating SYNC_STATE_ONLY proxy device links from a device that is an
> ancestor of a consumer fwnode.
>
> Reported-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ideasonboard.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/1a1ab663-d068-40fb-8c94-f0715403d276@ideasonboard.com/
> Fixes: 6442d79d880c ("driver core: fw_devlink: Improve detection of overlapping cycles")
> Tested-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ideasonboard.com>
> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
> ---
> drivers/base/core.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>
> Tomi,
>
> Thanks for all the testing and debugging help! And do use
> post-init-providers even with this patch to improve ordering
> enforcement. I probably should change the cycle log from info to warn in
> a separate patch :)
I've had this patch in one of my WIP branches for a while. Today I
started debugging a kmemleak in the branch, which I thought was related
to my changes. However, it ended up being this patch.
One of the drivers touched in my WIP branch is
drivers/media/i2c/ds90ub960.c. It does a i2c_new_client_device() and, at
remove time, i2c_unregister_device().
Without this patch, with some debug prints, I see that the newly created
i2c client has a kref count of 11, and when i2c_unregister_device() is
called, I see kref dropping to 0 and i2c_client_dev_release() being called.
With this patch, after i2c_new_client_device(), I see a kref of 16, and
after i2c_unregister_device(), a kref of 5 (and i2c_client_dev_release()
not called).
So five new refs were added, and not released... Any thoughts?
Tomi
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-06 15:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-30 17:10 Saravana Kannan
2024-11-06 1:30 ` Saravana Kannan
2024-11-06 4:52 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2024-11-19 13:40 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2024-11-20 2:04 ` Saravana Kannan
2024-11-20 8:43 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2024-12-04 11:48 ` Luca Ceresoli
2024-12-04 12:52 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2024-12-04 17:14 ` Luca Ceresoli
2024-12-06 9:31 ` Luca Ceresoli
2025-02-12 15:33 ` Luca Ceresoli
2025-02-13 8:08 ` Saravana Kannan
2025-01-06 15:16 ` Tomi Valkeinen [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=922c3edf-c52c-42ef-a096-e02f74e01f85@ideasonboard.com \
--to=tomi.valkeinen@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=francesco.dolcini@toradex.com \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jai.luthra@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=saravanak@google.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®