linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 22/22] of/platform: Defer probes of registered devices

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1445549230.701.116.camel@freescale.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:27:10 -0500
From:	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
To:	Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
CC:	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	"Thierry Reding" <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"Hu Mingkai-B21284" <Mingkai.Hu@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 22/22] of/platform: Defer probes of registered devices

On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 15:04 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 22 October 2015 at 00:51, Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-10-21 at 08:44 -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 16:03 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> > > > > Instead of trying to match and probe platform and AMBA devices right
> > > > > after each is registered, delay their probes until 
> > > > > device_initcall_sync.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This means that devices will start probing once all built-in drivers
> > > > > have registered, and after all platform and AMBA devices from the DT
> > > > > have been registered already.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This allows us to prevent deferred probes by probing dependencies on
> > > > > demand.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 
> > > > > Changes in v4:
> > > > > - Also defer probes of AMBA devices registered from the DT as they 
> > > > > can
> > > > >   also request resources.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  drivers/of/platform.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > > > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > This breaks arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_pci.c.  The PCI bus is an OF 
> > > > platform
> > > > device, and it must be probed before pcibios_init() which is a
> > > > subsys_initcall(), or else the PCI bus never gets scanned.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the report. This is probably getting dropped, but it could
> > > be disabled for PPC.
> > 
> > I don't think that adding another arbitrary arch difference would be the
> > right solution.
> 
> I think Rob meant temporarily disable it while things get fixed. At
> least, 

So, what is the permanent fix for the swiotlb issue (or more generally, the 
inability to have a late_initcall that runs after non-module, non-hotplug 
platform devices have been probed)?

> I don't see any reason why PPC wouldn't benefit from this
> series.

It's not clear to me what the benefit of this is at all, much less for PPC.   
What is the fundamental problem with deferred probes?  In the cover letter 
you say this change saves 2.3 seconds, but where is that time being consumed? 
 Are the drivers taking too long in their probe function trying to initialize 
and then deferring, rather than checking for dependencies up front?  Or are 
there really so many devices and such a pessimal ordering that most of the 
time is spent iterating through and reordering the list, with each defer 
happening quickly?

Even if something different does need to be done at this level, forcing all 
OF platform devices to be probed at the late_initcall level seems quite 
intrusive.  You limited it to OF because people complained that other things 
will break.  Things still broke.  Surely there's a better way to address the 
problem.  Can't the delay be requested by drivers that might otherwise need 
to defer (which could be done incrementally, focusing on the worst 
performance problems), rather than enabling it for everything?

-Scott


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/