Message-ID: <CAGETcx8wnOoKuvv+eRYKpndNG2OBCabyGigdvMhG_LPn5QqyFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:10:42 -0700
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...roid.com>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 1/5] of/platform: Speed up of_find_device_by_node()

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:12 PM Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:29 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:19 AM Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:08 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:53:09AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:22 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > > > > <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 07:53:39AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:52 PM Sandeep Patil <sspatil@...roid.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 01:56:25PM -0700, 'Saravana Kannan' via kernel-team wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 8:18 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Saravana,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 6/10/19 10:36 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Why are you resending this rather than replying to Frank's last
> > > > > > > > > > > comments on the original?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Adding on a different aspect...  The independent replies from three different
> > > > > > > > > > maintainers (Rob, Mark, myself) pointed out architectural issues with the
> > > > > > > > > > patch series.  There were also some implementation issues brought out.
> > > > > > > > > > (Although I refrained from bringing up most of my implementation issues
> > > > > > > > > > as they are not relevant until architecture issues are resolved.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Right, I'm not too worried about the implementation issues before we
> > > > > > > > > settle on the architectural issues. Those are easy to fix.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Honestly, the main points that the maintainers raised are:
> > > > > > > > > 1) This is a configuration property and not describing the device.
> > > > > > > > > Just use the implicit dependencies coming from existing bindings.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I gave a bunch of reasons for why I think it isn't an OS configuration
> > > > > > > > > property. But even if that's not something the maintainers can agree
> > > > > > > > > to, I gave a concrete example (cyclic dependencies between clock
> > > > > > > > > provider hardware) where the implicit dependencies would prevent one
> > > > > > > > > of the devices from probing till the end of time. So even if the
> > > > > > > > > maintainers don't agree we should always look at "depends-on" to
> > > > > > > > > decide the dependencies, we still need some means to override the
> > > > > > > > > implicit dependencies where they don't match the real dependency. Can
> > > > > > > > > we use depends-on as an override when the implicit dependencies aren't
> > > > > > > > > correct?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2) This doesn't need to be solved because this is just optimizing
> > > > > > > > > probing or saving power ("we should get rid of this auto disabling"):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I explained why this patch series is not just about optimizing probe
> > > > > > > > > ordering or saving power. And why we can't ignore auto disabling
> > > > > > > > > (because it's more than just auto disabling). The kernel is currently
> > > > > > > > > broken when trying to use modules in ARM SoCs (probably in other
> > > > > > > > > systems/archs too, but I can't speak for those).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3) Concerns about backwards compatibility
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I pointed out why the current scheme (depends-on being the only source
> > > > > > > > > of dependency) doesn't break compatibility. And if we go with
> > > > > > > > > "depends-on" as an override what we could do to keep backwards
> > > > > > > > > compatibility. Happy to hear more thoughts or discuss options.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 4) How the "sync_state" would work for a device that supplies multiple
> > > > > > > > > functionalities but a limited driver.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > To be clear, all of above are _real_ problems that stops us from efficiently
> > > > > > > > load device drivers as modules for Android.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, if 'depends-on' doesn't seem like the right approach and "going back to
> > > > > > > > the drawing board" is the ask, could you please point us in the right
> > > > > > > > direction?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Use the dependencies which are already there in DT. That's clocks,
> > > > > > > pinctrl, regulators, interrupts, gpio at a minimum. I'm simply not
> > > > > > > going to accept duplicating all those dependencies in DT. The downside
> > > > > > > for the kernel is you have to address these one by one and can't have
> > > > > > > a generic property the driver core code can parse. After that's in
> > > > > > > place, then maybe we can consider handling any additional dependencies
> > > > > > > not already captured in DT. Once all that is in place, we can probably
> > > > > > > sort device and/or driver lists to optimize the probe order (maybe the
> > > > > > > driver core already does that now?).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Get rid of the auto disabling of clocks and regulators in
> > > > > > > late_initcall. It's simply not a valid marker that boot is done when
> > > > > > > modules are involved. We probably can't get rid of it as lot's of
> > > > > > > platforms rely on that, so it will have to be opt out. Make it the
> > > > > > > platform's responsibility for ensuring a consistent state.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps we need a 'boot done' or 'stop deferring probe' trigger from
> > > > > > > userspace in order to make progress if dependencies are missing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > People have tried to do this multiple times, and you never really know
> > > > > > when "boot is done" due to busses that have discoverable devices and
> > > > > > async probing of other busses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I know which is why I proposed the second name with more limited
> > > > > meaning/function.
> > > >
> > > > I still don't want to have the kernel have to rely on this.
> > > >
> > > > > > You do know "something" when you pivot to a new boot disk, and when you
> > > > > > try to load init, but given initramfs and the fact that modules are
> > > > > > usually included on them, that's not really a good indication that
> > > > > > anything is "finished".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't want userspace to be responsible for telling the kernel, "hey
> > > > > > you should be finished now!", as that's an async notification that is
> > > > > > going to be ripe for problems.
> > > > >
> > > > > The usecase I care about here is when the DT has the dependency
> > > > > information, but the kernel doesn't have the driver and the dependency
> > > > > is never resolved.
> > > >
> > > > Then we have the same situation as today and nothing different happens,
> > > > right?
> > >
> > > Huh?
> > >
> > > This works today, but not for modules.
> >
> > Replying to this a bit further down.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > The same problem has to be solved with a
> > > > > 'depends-on' property. This easily happens with a new DT with added
> > > > > dependencies like pinctrl and an old kernel that doesn't have the
> > > > > "new" driver.
> >
> > Isn't this the perfect example of an "implicit dependency" in a DT
> > node not being a mandatory dependency? The old kernel worked fine with
> > older DT without the added pinctrl dependency, so treating it as a
> > mandatory dependency seems wrong for that particular device?
> > depends-on avoids all this because the older kernel won't parse
> > depends-on. And for newer kernels, it'll parse only what depends-on
> > says are dependencies and not make wrong assumptions.
>
> What happens when the older kernel is a kernel that parses
> 'depends-on'? What's 'older' is a moving target. We just need a
> 'depends-on-v5.2', 'depends-on-v5.3', etc.
> It's not just 'old' kernels. Current kernels which didn't enable some
> driver also have the same problem. All of this is mostly just a
> development problem on incomplete platforms. But it is a real problem
> that SUSE folks have raised.
> > > > > Another example is IOMMUs. We need some way to say stop
> > > > > waiting for dependencies. It is really just a debug option (of course,
> > > > > how to prevent a debug option from being used in production?). This
> > > > > works now for built-in cases with the same late_initcall abuse.
> > > >
> > > > What is a debug option?  We need something "for real".
> > > >
> > > > > Using late_initcall_sync as an indicator has all the same problems
> > > > > with userspace indicating boot finished. We should get rid of the
> > > > > late_initcall_sync abuses and stop trying to work around them.
> > > >
> > > > I agree, but that's not the issue here.
> > >
> > > It is because the cover letter mentions it and downstream work around it.
> >
> > This patch series is trying to remove the use of late_initcall_sync
> > and instead relying on dependency information coming from DT. So, you
> > are agreeing with the patchset.
>
> That aspect, yes. It was Greg that said the late_initcall_sync abuses
> were not the issue. 'depends-on' is the only thing I'm objecting to
> ATM and I understand the problem (you're not the first to try). I've
> not studied the the details of the patchset though beyond that.
>
> > > > > > I really like the "depends-on" information, as it shows a topology that
> > > > > > DT doesn't seem to be able to show today, yet we rely on it in the
> > > > > > kernel with the whole deferred probing mess.  To me, there doesn't seem
> > > > > > to be any other way to properly "know" this.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I said, DT *does* have this dependency information already. The
> > > > > problem is the kernel probing doesn't use it. Fix that and then we can
> > > > > discuss dependencies the DT doesn't provide that the kernel needs.
> > > >
> > > > Where can the kernel probing be fixed to use it?  What am I missing that
> > > > can be done instead of what this patchset does?
> > >
> > > Somewhere, either in each subsystem or in the DT or core code creating
> > > struct devices, you need to iterate thru the dependencies. Take clocks
> > > as an example:
> > >
> > > for each node:
> > >   for each 'clocks' phandle
> > >     Lookup struct device from clock phandle
> > >     Add the clock provider struct device to node's struct device links
> > >
> > > Now, repeat this for regulators, interrupts, etc.
> >
> > I'm more than happy to do this if the maintainers can accept this as a
> > solution, but then we need to agree that we need an override property

Can you please respond to this? For the clock controller example, we
need to explicitly override the implied dependency because... see
subsequent comments below.
Can we at least agree to using "depends-on" as an override when the
existing bindings don't properly define the mandatory dependencies? If
it'll make you happy, we can even make it "does-not-depend-on".

> > if the implicit dependency isn't a mandatory dependency. We also need
> > to agree on how we do this without breaking backwards compatibility.
> > Either as a config option for this feature or have a property in the
> > "chosen" node to say it's okay to assume existing bindings imply
> > mandatory dependencies (it's just describing the DT more explicitly
> > and the kernel will use it to enable this feature).
>
> Thinking of the above example I gave, the problem is mandatory or not
> can't be decided in the DT. It's a function of what the kernel
> supports or not, so the kernel has to decide.

That might be debatable for the example you gave, but it's certainly
not debatable for some clock controllers (CC) that have cyclic
dependencies. Only one of them can function without the other.

> With a 'depends-on'
> property, the value you'd want depends on which kernel do you boot.

In the cases I'm thinking of, this has nothing to do with the kernel.
CC1 supplies 50 clocks, 5 of which need input from CC2. CC2 supplies
10 clocks, all of them are dependent on 4 inputs from CC1. CC2 can
never function without CC1. But in DT, they'll have a cyclic
dependency if you go by clock bindings they list.

> If
> I'm booting a kernel with the pinctrl driver, then pinctrl is a
> mandatory dependency. If I'm booting a kernel without the pinctrl
> driver, then pinctrl is not a 'depends-on' dependency.

The way I define depends-on, pinctrl will never be a dependency for
this specific device (because you are saying it can function without
it). The driver decides if it wants to -EPROBE_DEFER or not depending
on the kernel. But I've beaten this horse to death. So, moving
along...

> Ignoring
> dependencies like this case only works when things are built-in and
> only for specific subsystems where it makes sense. It would be nice to
> solve it for modules too, but that can be done later.
>
> There's also the case of dependencies where the driver decides how to
> handle them. For example, UARTs will use DMA if the dmaengine driver
> is available and that decision is (at least for some drivers I've
> looked at) made on every open(). I suppose in that case, the driver
> could remove the dependency link since it knows it can work with or
> without DMA, though we'd need some sort of mechanism to do that.

Now you are just going back to listing the examples I gave for why we
need "depends-on" and why existing bindings aren't mandatory
dependencies. Don't know if I should laugh or cry :)

-Saravana

> > Although regulator binding are a "problem" because the kernel will
> > have to parse every property in a node to check if it ends with
> > -supply and then treat it as if it's a regulator binding (even though
> > it might not be). So regulators will need some kind of "opt out" in
> > the kernel (not DT).
>
> Yes, that's unfortunate. GPIO is the same. You can safely assume that
> '-supply' is a regulator. This is at least somewhat enforced by the
> binding schema now.
>
> We probably need a for_each_of_property_with_suffix() iterator for
> these cases and with some pointer math on the property names or a
> custom str compare function, it shouldn't be much slower to match.
>
> > > This series is pretty much doing the same thing, you just have to
> > > parse each provider rather than only 'depends-on'.
> > >
> > > One issue is the struct device for the dependency may not be created
> > > yet. I think this series would have the same issue, but haven't dug
> > > into how it avoids that or whether it just ignores it and falls back
> > > to deferring probe.
> >
> > The patch series handles this properly and doesn't fall back to
> > deferred probing.
> >
> > > I'm also not clear on how you create struct devices and add
> > > dependencies before probing gets attempted. If a driver is already
> > > registered, probe is going to be attempted before any dependencies are
> > > added. I guess the issue is avoided with drivers being modules, but
> > > any solution should work for built-in too.
> >
> > This is also handled properly in the series.
> >
> > I've actually boot tested both these scenarios you call out and the
> > patch series handles them properly.
>
> Okay, that's good.
>
> > But you are missing the main point here. The goal isn't to just
> > eliminate deferred probing (it's a great side effect even it it just
> > stops 99% of them), but also remove the bad assumption that
> > late_initcall_sync() means all the devices are probed. The suppliers
> > need a better signal (which the patch series provides) to tell when
> > they can "unfreeze" the resources left on at boot.
>
> I understand this. I think I was clear on my opinion about using
> late_initcall_sync.
>
> Rob

Powered by blists - more mailing lists