[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250718044006-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 04:40:22 -0400
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Parav Pandit <parav@...dia.com>, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
stefanha@...hat.com, alok.a.tiwari@...cle.com,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v5 1/5] pci: report surprise removal event
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 06:35:56AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 07:31:57PM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 10:12:03PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > pciehp_handle_presence_or_link_change() is called from pciehp_ist(),
> > > the IRQ thread. During safe removal the IRQ thread is busy in
> > > pciehp_unconfigure_device() and waiting for the driver to unbind
> > > from devices being safe-removed.
> >
> > Confused. I thought safe removal happens in the userspace thread
> > that wrote into sysfs?
>
> No, the userspace thread synthesizes a DISABLE_SLOT event,
> calls irq_wake_thread(), then waits for the IRQ thread to
> finish handling that event. See pciehp_sysfs_disable_slot().
>
> Until 2018 we indeed brought down the slot in the userspace
> thread, but that required locking between the workqueue fed
> by the interrupt handler on the one hand and the userspace
> thread on the other hand. It was difficult to reason about
> the code.
>
> We had bug reports about slots flapping the link or presence
> bits on slot bringdown that we could easily address by handling
> everything in the IRQ thread, see 3943af9d01e9. The same was
> reported for slot bringup and addressed by 6c35a1ac3da6.
>
> This wouldn't have been possible with the architecture prior
> to 2018, at least not this easily.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lukas
Got it, thanks!
--
MST
Powered by blists - more mailing lists