Message-ID: <fd158245-aa9a-2e48-0145-004f30005a66@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Dec 2021 22:33:32 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Joshua Thompson <funaho@...ai.org>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
        Vincent Chen <deanbo422@...il.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, alankao@...estech.com,
        "K . C . Kuen-Chern Lin" <kclin@...estech.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-csky@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-tegra <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/25] notifier: Add
 atomic/blocking_notifier_has_unique_priority()

10.12.2021 22:05, Rafael J. Wysocki пишет:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 7:52 PM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> 10.12.2021 21:19, Rafael J. Wysocki пишет:
>> ...
>>>> +bool atomic_notifier_has_unique_priority(struct atomic_notifier_head *nh,
>>>> +               struct notifier_block *n)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       unsigned long flags;
>>>> +       bool ret;
>>>> +
>>>> +       spin_lock_irqsave(&nh->lock, flags);
>>>> +       ret = notifier_has_unique_priority(&nh->head, n);
>>>> +       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&nh->lock, flags);
>>>
>>> This only works if the caller can prevent new entries from being added
>>> to the list at this point or if the caller knows that they cannot be
>>> added for some reason, but the kerneldoc doesn't mention this
>>> limitation.
>>
>> I'll update the comment.
>>
>> ..
>>>> +bool blocking_notifier_has_unique_priority(struct blocking_notifier_head *nh,
>>>> +               struct notifier_block *n)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       bool ret;
>>>> +
>>>> +       /*
>>>> +        * This code gets used during boot-up, when task switching is
>>>> +        * not yet working and interrupts must remain disabled. At such
>>>> +        * times we must not call down_read().
>>>> +        */
>>>> +       if (system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING)
>>>
>>> No, please don't do this, it makes the whole thing error-prone.
>>
>> What should I do then?
> 
> First of all, do you know of any users who may want to call this
> during early initialization?  If so, then why may they want to do
> that?

I'll need to carefully review all those dozens of platform restart
handlers to answer this question.

> Depending on the above, I would consider adding a special mechanism for them.

Please notice that every blocking_notifier_*() function has this
SYSTEM_BOOTING check, it's not my invention. Notifier API needs to be
generic.

>>>> +               down_read(&nh->rwsem);
>>>> +
>>>> +       ret = notifier_has_unique_priority(&nh->head, n);
>>>> +
>>>> +       if (system_state != SYSTEM_BOOTING)
>>>> +               up_read(&nh->rwsem);
>>>
>>> And still what if a new entry with a non-unique priority is added to
>>> the chain at this point?
>>
>> If entry with a non-unique priority is added after the check, then
>> obviously it won't be detected.
> 
> Why isn't this a problem?>> I don't understand the question. These
>> down/up_read() are the locks that prevent the race, if that's the question.
> 
> Not really, they only prevent the race from occurring while
> notifier_has_unique_priority() is running.
> 
> If anyone depends on this check for correctness, they need to lock the
> rwsem, do the check, do the thing depending on the check while holding
> the rwsem and then release the rwsem.  Otherwise it is racy.
> 

It's fine that it's a bit "racy" since in the context of this series. We
always do the check after adding new entry, so it's not a problem.

There are two options:

1. Use blocking_notifier_has_unique_priority() like it's done in this
patchset. Remove it after all drivers are converted to the new API and
add blocking_notifier_chain_register_unique().

2. Add blocking_notifier_chain_register_unique(), but don't let it fail
the registration of non-unique entries until all drivers are converted
to the new API.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists