Message-ID: <ed442b6916016b3a40782dc32538fc517715db6c.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2024 14:05:16 +0100
From: Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Frank
 Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
 Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@....com>, Max Zhen <max.zhen@....com>, Sonal Santan
 <sonal.santan@....com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...inx.com>,
  Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Allan Nielsen
 <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>, Horatiu Vultur
 <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>, Steen Hegelund
 <steen.hegelund@...rochip.com>, Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@...tlin.com>,
 Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>, Thomas Petazzoni
 <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,  stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] driver core: Introduce device_link_wait_removal()

On Wed, 2024-03-06 at 13:43 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 10:17 AM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@...il.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2024-03-06 at 09:50 +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> > > The commit 80dd33cf72d1 ("drivers: base: Fix device link removal")
> > > introduces a workqueue to release the consumer and supplier devices used
> > > in the devlink.
> > > In the job queued, devices are release and in turn, when all the
> > > references to these devices are dropped, the release function of the
> > > device itself is called.
> > > 
> > > Nothing is present to provide some synchronisation with this workqueue
> > > in order to ensure that all ongoing releasing operations are done and
> > > so, some other operations can be started safely.
> > > 
> > > For instance, in the following sequence:
> > >   1) of_platform_depopulate()
> > >   2) of_overlay_remove()
> > > 
> > > During the step 1, devices are released and related devlinks are removed
> > > (jobs pushed in the workqueue).
> > > During the step 2, OF nodes are destroyed but, without any
> > > synchronisation with devlink removal jobs, of_overlay_remove() can raise
> > > warnings related to missing of_node_put():
> > >   ERROR: memory leak, expected refcount 1 instead of 2
> > > 
> > > Indeed, the missing of_node_put() call is going to be done, too late,
> > > from the workqueue job execution.
> > > 
> > > Introduce device_link_wait_removal() to offer a way to synchronize
> > > operations waiting for the end of devlink removals (i.e. end of
> > > workqueue jobs).
> > > Also, as a flushing operation is done on the workqueue, the workqueue
> > > used is moved from a system-wide workqueue to a local one.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 80dd33cf72d1 ("drivers: base: Fix device link removal")
> > > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > With the below addressed:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@...log.com>
> > 
> > >  drivers/base/core.c    | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > >  include/linux/device.h |  1 +
> > >  2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> > > index d5f4e4aac09b..48b28c59c592 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> > > @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ static bool fw_devlink_is_permissive(void);
> > >  static void __fw_devlink_link_to_consumers(struct device *dev);
> > >  static bool fw_devlink_drv_reg_done;
> > >  static bool fw_devlink_best_effort;
> > > +static struct workqueue_struct *device_link_wq;
> > > 
> > >  /**
> > >   * __fwnode_link_add - Create a link between two fwnode_handles.
> > > @@ -532,12 +533,26 @@ static void devlink_dev_release(struct device *dev)
> > >       /*
> > >        * It may take a while to complete this work because of the SRCU
> > >        * synchronization in device_link_release_fn() and if the consumer
> > > or
> > > -      * supplier devices get deleted when it runs, so put it into the
> > > "long"
> > > -      * workqueue.
> > > +      * supplier devices get deleted when it runs, so put it into the
> > > +      * dedicated workqueue.
> > >        */
> > > -     queue_work(system_long_wq, &link->rm_work);
> > > +     queue_work(device_link_wq, &link->rm_work);
> > >  }
> > > 
> > > +/**
> > > + * device_link_wait_removal - Wait for ongoing devlink removal jobs to
> > > terminate
> > > + */
> > > +void device_link_wait_removal(void)
> > > +{
> > > +     /*
> > > +      * devlink removal jobs are queued in the dedicated work queue.
> > > +      * To be sure that all removal jobs are terminated, ensure that any
> > > +      * scheduled work has run to completion.
> > > +      */
> > > +     flush_workqueue(device_link_wq);
> > > +}
> > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_link_wait_removal);
> > > +
> > >  static struct class devlink_class = {
> > >       .name = "devlink",
> > >       .dev_groups = devlink_groups,
> > > @@ -4099,9 +4114,14 @@ int __init devices_init(void)
> > >       sysfs_dev_char_kobj = kobject_create_and_add("char", dev_kobj);
> > >       if (!sysfs_dev_char_kobj)
> > >               goto char_kobj_err;
> > > +     device_link_wq = alloc_workqueue("device_link_wq", 0, 0);
> > > +     if (!device_link_wq)
> > > +             goto wq_err;
> > > 
> > 
> > I can't still agree with this. Why not doing it in devlink_class_init()?
> > This is
> > devlink specific so it makes complete sense to me.
> 
> If you do that in devlink_class_init() and it fails, you essentially
> cause the creation of every device link to fail.  IOW, you try to live
> without device links and pretend that it is all OK.  That won't get
> you very far, especially on systems where DT is used.
> 
> Doing it here, if it fails, you prevent the driver model from working
> at all (because one of its necessary components is unavailable), which
> arguably is a better choice.

That makes sense but then the only thing I still don't fully get is why we have
a separate devlink_class_init() initcall for registering the devlink class
(which can also fail)... What I take from the above is that we should fail the
driver model if one of it's fundamental components fails so I would say we
should merge devlink_class_init() with device_init() otherwise it's a bit
confusing (at least to me) and gives the idea that it's ok for the driver model
to exist without the links (unless I'm missing some other reason for the devlink
init function).

- Nuno Sá

Powered by blists - more mailing lists