Message-ID: <20210324111729.702b3942@omen.home.shazbot.org>
Date:   Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:17:29 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@...ux.net>,
        Amey Narkhede <ameynarkhede03@...il.com>,
        raphael.norwitz@...anix.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        alay.shah@...anix.com, suresh.gumpula@...anix.com,
        shyam.rajendran@...anix.com, felipe@...anix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] PCI/sysfs: Allow userspace to query and set device
 reset mechanism

On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 17:13:56 +0200
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 08:37:43AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 12:03:00 +0200
> > Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 11:10:03AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:  
> > > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 10:40:55 +0200
> > > > Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >     
> > > > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 08:59:42AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:    
> > > > > > On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:10:08 +0200
> > > > > > Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:      
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:23:13AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:       
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > What if we taint the kernel or pci_warn() for cases where either all
> > > > > > > > the reset methods are disabled, ie. 'echo none > reset_method', or any
> > > > > > > > time a device specific method is disabled?        
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What does it mean "none"? Does it mean nothing supported? If yes, I think that
> > > > > > > pci_warn() will be enough. At least for me, taint is usable during debug stages,
> > > > > > > probably if device doesn't crash no one will look to see /proc/sys/kernel/tainted.      
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > "none" as implemented in this patch, clearing the enabled function
> > > > > > reset methods.      
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is far from intuitive, the empty string will be easier to understand,
> > > > > because "none" means no reset at all.    
> > > > 
> > > > "No reset at all" is what "none" achieves, the
> > > > pci_dev.reset_methods_enabled bitmap is cleared.  We can use an empty
> > > > string, but I think we want a way to clear all enabled resets and a way
> > > > to return it to the default.  I could see arguments for an empty string
> > > > serving either purpose, so this version proposed explicitly using
> > > > "none" and "default", as included in the ABI update.    
> > > 
> > > I will stick with "default" only and leave "none" for something else.  
> > 
> > Are you suggesting writing "default" restores the unmodified behavior
> > and writing an empty string clears all enabled reset methods?
> >    
> > > > > > > > I'd almost go so far as to prevent disabling a device specific reset
> > > > > > > > altogether, but for example should a device specific reset that fixes
> > > > > > > > an aspect of FLR behavior prevent using a bus reset?  I'd prefer in that
> > > > > > > > case if direct FLR were disabled via a device flag introduced with the
> > > > > > > > quirk and the remaining resets can still be selected by preference.        
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I don't know enough to discuss the PCI details, but you raised good point.
> > > > > > > This sysfs is user visible API that is presented as is from device point
> > > > > > > of view. It can be easily run into problems if PCI/core doesn't work with
> > > > > > > user's choice.
> > > > > > >       
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Theoretically all the other reset methods work and are available, it's
> > > > > > > > only a policy decision which to use, right?        
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > But this patch was presented as a way to overcome situations where
> > > > > > > supported != working and user magically knows which reset type to set.      
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's not magic, the new sysfs attributes expose which resets are
> > > > > > enabled and the order that they're used, the user can simply select the
> > > > > > next one.  Being able to bypass a broken reset method is a helpful side
> > > > > > effect of getting to select a preferred reset method.      
> > > > > 
> > > > > Magic in a sense that user has no idea what those resets mean, the
> > > > > expectation is that he will blindly iterate till something works.    
> > > > 
> > > > Which ought to actually be a safe thing to do.  We should have quirks to
> > > > exclude resets that are known broken but still probe as present and I'd
> > > > be perfectly fine if we issue a warning if the user disables all resets
> > > > for a given device.
> > > >      
> > > > > > > If you want to take this patch to be policy decision tool,
> > > > > > > it will need to accept "reset_type1,reset_type2,..." sort of input,
> > > > > > > so fallback will work natively.      
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I don't see that as a requirement.  We have fall-through support in the
> > > > > > kernel, but for a given device we're really only ever going to make use
> > > > > > of one of those methods.  If a user knows enough about a device to have
> > > > > > a preference, I think it can be singular.  That also significantly
> > > > > > simplifies the interface and supporting code.  Thanks,      
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm struggling to get requirements from this thread. You talked about
> > > > > policy decision to overtake fallback mechanism, Amey wanted to avoid
> > > > > quirks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do you have an example of such devices or we are talking about
> > > > > theoretical case?    
> > > > 
> > > > Look at any device that already has a reset quirk and the process it
> > > > took to get there.  Those are more than just theoretical cases.    
> > > 
> > > So let's fix the process. The long standing kernel policy is that kernel
> > > bugs (and missing quirk can be seen as such bug) should be fixed in the
> > > kernel and not workaround by the users.  
> > 
> > I don't see an actual proposal here to fix the process.  Allowing
> > specific reset methods to be trivially tested is a step towards fixing
> > the process.  Unfortunately we can't tell the difference between
> > someone setting a policy because they prefer a reset mechanism, are
> > testing a reset mechanism, or they're avoiding a broken reset mechanism.
> > We can't force participation if we've made it clear that the interface
> > should not be used long term for anything other than policy preference
> > and testing.  
> 
> Yes, and real testing/debugging almost always requires kernel rebuild.
> Everything else is waste of time.

Sorry, this is nonsense.  Allowing users to debug issues without a full
kernel rebuild is a good thing.

> > > > For policy preference, I already described how I've configured QEMU to
> > > > prefer a bus reset rather than a PM reset due to lack of specification
> > > > regarding the scope of a PM "soft reset".  This interface would allow a
> > > > system policy to do that same thing.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think anyone is suggesting this as a means to avoid quirks that
> > > > would resolve reset issues and create the best default general behavior.
> > > > This provides a mechanism to test various reset methods, and thereby
> > > > identify broken methods, and set a policy.  Sure, that policy might be
> > > > to avoid a broken reset in the interim before it gets quirked and
> > > > there's potential for abuse there, but I think the benefits outweigh
> > > > the risks.    
> > > 
> > > This interface is proposed as first class citizen in the general sysfs
> > > layout. Of course, it will be seen as a way to bypass the kernel.
> > > 
> > > At least, put it under CONFIG_EXPERT option, so no distro will enable it
> > > by default.  
> > 
> > Of course we're proposing it to be accessible, it should also require
> > admin privileges to modify, sysfs has lots of such things.  If it's
> > relegated to non-default accessibility, it won't be used for testing
> > and it won't be available for system policy and it's pointless.  
> 
> We probably have difference in view of what testing is. I expect from
> the users who experience issues with reset to do extra steps and one of
> them is to require from them to compile their kernel.

I would define the ability to generate a CI test that can pick a
device, unbind it from its driver, and iterate reset methods as a
worthwhile improvement in testing.

> The root permissions doesn't protect from anything, SO lovers will use
> root without even thinking twice.

Yes, with great power comes great responsibility.  Many admins ignore
this.  That's far beyond the scope of this series.

> > > > > And I don't see why simple line parser with loop iterator over strchr()
> > > > > suddenly becomes complicated code.    
> > > > 
> > > > Setting multiple bits in a bitmap is easy.  How do you then go on to
> > > > allow the user to specify an ordering preference?  If you have an
> > > > algorithm you'd like to propose that allows the user to manage the
> > > > ordering when enabling multiple methods without substantially
> > > > increasing the complexity, please share.  IMO, a given device will
> > > > generally use one reset method and it seems sufficient to restrict user
> > > > preference to achieve all the use cases I've noted.  Thanks,    
> > > 
> > > Linked list + iterator will do the trick.  
> > 
> > So you're suggesting to add potentially multiple dynamic allocations per
> > device and list locking and management for an unspecified use case for
> > an interface you seem to be opposed to anyway.  It should be pretty
> > clear why the keep-it-simple approach was taken in this series.  Thanks,  
> 
> I'm trying to help you with your use case of providing reset policy
> mechanism, which can be without CONFIG_EXPERT. However if you want
> to continue path of having specific reset type only, please ensure
> that this is not taken to the "bypass kernel" direction.

You've lost me, are you saying you'd be in favor of an interface that
allows an admin to specify an arbitrary list of reset methods because
that's somehow more in line with a policy choice than a userspace
workaround?  This seems like unnecessary bloat because (a) it allows
the same bypass mechanism, and (b) a given device is only going to use
a single method anyway, so the functionality is unnecessary.  Please
help me understand how this favors the policy use case.  Thanks,

Alex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists