Message-ID: <DM6PR11MB465732D702870D69F6B1F3EB9BAEA@DM6PR11MB4657.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 11:19:41 +0000
From: "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org"
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "Michalik, Michal" <michal.michalik@...el.com>,
	"Olech, Milena" <milena.olech@...el.com>, "pabeni@...hat.com"
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net 3/3] dpll: fix register pin with unregistered parent
 pin

>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2023 11:07 AM
>
>Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 09:50:34AM CET, arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com wrote:
>>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2023 7:48 AM
>>>
>>>Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 12:21:11AM CET, arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com
>>>wrote:
>>>>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>>>>>Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 7:04 PM
>>>>>
>>>>>Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 05:02:48PM CET, arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
>>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 11:56 AM
>>>>>>>To: Kubalewski, Arkadiusz <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>; Jiri
>>>>>>>Pirko
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 09/11/2023 09:59, Kubalewski, Arkadiusz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 4:08 PM
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 11:32:26AM CET,
>>>>>>>>>arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In case of multiple kernel module instances using the same dpll
>>>>>>>>>>device:
>>>>>>>>>> if only one registers dpll device, then only that one can
>>>>>>>>>>register
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They why you don't register in multiple instances? See mlx5 for a
>>>>>>>>> reference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every registration requires ops, but for our case only PF0 is able
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> control dpll pins and device, thus only this can provide ops.
>>>>>>>> Basically without PF0, dpll is not able to be controlled, as well
>>>>>>>> as directly connected pins.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But why do you need other pins then, if FP0 doesn't exist?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In general we don't need them at that point, but this is a corner
>>>>>>case,
>>>>>>where users for some reason decided to unbind PF 0, and I treat this
>>>>>>state
>>>>>>as temporary, where dpll/pins controllability is temporarily broken.
>>>>>
>>>>>So resolve this broken situation internally in the driver, registering
>>>>>things only in case PF0 is present. Some simple notification infra
>>>>>would
>>>>>do. Don't drag this into the subsystem internals.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for your feedback, but this is already wrong advice.
>>>>
>>>>Our HW/FW is designed in different way than yours, it doesn't mean it is
>>>>wrong.
>>>>As you might recall from our sync meetings, the dpll subsystem is to
>>>>unify
>>>>approaches and reduce the code in the drivers, where your advice is
>>>>exactly
>>>
>>>No. Your driver knows when what objects are valid or not. Of a pin of
>>>PF1 is not valid because the "master" PF0 is gone, it is responsibility
>>>of your driver to resolve that. Don't bring this internal dependencies
>>>to the dpll core please, does not make any sense to do so. Thanks!
>>>
>>
>>No, a driver doesn't know it, those are separated instances, and you
>>already
>>suggested to implement special notification bus in the driver.
>>This is not needed and prone for another errors. The dpll subsystem is
>>here to
>>make driver life easier.
>
>See the other thread for my reply.
>

Ok, will do.

Thank you!
Arkadiusz

>>
>>Thank you!
>>Arkadiusz
>>
>>>
>>>>opposite, suggested fix would require to implement extra synchronization
>>>>of the
>>>>dpll and pin registration state between driver instances, most probably
>>>>with
>>>>use of additional modules like aux-bus or something similar, which was
>>>>from the
>>>>very beginning something we tried to avoid.
>>>>Only ice uses the infrastructure of muxed pins, and this is broken as it
>>>>doesn't allow unbind the driver which have registered dpll and pins
>>>>without
>>>>crashing the kernel, so a fix is required in dpll subsystem, not in the
>>>>driver.
>>>>
>>>>Thank you!
>>>>Arkadiusz
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The dpll at that point is not registered, all the direct pins are also
>>>>>>not registered, thus not available to the users.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When I do dump at that point there are still 3 pins present, one for
>>>>>>each
>>>>>>PF, although they are all zombies - no parents as their parent pins
>>>>>>are
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>registered (as the other patch [1/3] prevents dump of pin parent if
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>parent is not registered). Maybe we can remove the REGISTERED mark for
>>>>>>all
>>>>>>the muxed pins, if all their parents have been unregistered, so they
>>>>>>won't
>>>>>>be visible to the user at all. Will try to POC that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> directly connected pins with a dpll device. If unregistered
>>>>>>>>>>parent
>>>>>>>>>> determines if the muxed pin can be register with it or not, it
>>>>>>>>>>forces
>>>>>>>>>> serialized driver load order - first the driver instance which
>>>>>>>>>> registers the direct pins needs to be loaded, then the other
>>>>>>>>>> instances
>>>>>>>>>> could register muxed type pins.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Allow registration of a pin with a parent even if the parent was
>>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>> yet registered, thus allow ability for unserialized driver
>>>>>>>>>>instance
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Weird.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, this is issue only for MUX/parent pin part, couldn't find
>>>>>>>>better
>>>>>>>> way, but it doesn't seem to break things around..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I just wonder how do you see the registration procedure? How can
>>>>>>>parent
>>>>>>>pin exist if it's not registered? I believe you cannot get it through
>>>>>>>DPLL API, then the only possible way is to create it within the same
>>>>>>>driver code, which can be simply re-arranged. Am I wrong here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>By "parent exist" I mean the parent pin exist in the dpll subsystem
>>>>>>(allocated on pins xa), but it doesn't mean it is available to the
>>>>>>users,
>>>>>>as it might not be registered with a dpll device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We have this 2 step init approach:
>>>>>>1. dpll_pin_get(..) -> allocate new pin or increase reference if exist
>>>>>>2.1. dpll_pin_register(..) -> register with a dpll device
>>>>>>2.2. dpll_pin_on_pin_register -> register with a parent pin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Basically:
>>>>>>- PF 0 does 1 & 2.1 for all the direct inputs, and steps: 1 & 2.2 for
>>>>>>its
>>>>>>  recovery clock pin,
>>>>>>- other PF's only do step 1 for the direct input pins (as they must
>>>>>>get
>>>>>>  reference to those in order to register recovery clock pin with
>>>>>>them),
>>>>>>  and steps: 1 & 2.2 for their recovery clock pin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thank you!
>>>>>>Arkadiusz
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>> Arkadiusz
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> load order.
>>>>>>>>>> Do not WARN_ON notification for unregistered pin, which can be
>>>>>>>>>> invoked
>>>>>>>>>> for described case, instead just return error.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 9431063ad323 ("dpll: core: Add DPLL framework base
>>>>>>>>>>functions")
>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: 9d71b54b65b1 ("dpll: netlink: Add DPLL framework base
>>>>>>>>>> functions")
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arkadiusz Kubalewski
>>>>>>>>>><arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c    | 4 ----
>>>>>>>>>> drivers/dpll/dpll_netlink.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c b/drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c
>>>>>>>>>> index
>>>>>>>>>> 4077b562ba3b..ae884b92d68c 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/dpll/dpll_core.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -28,8 +28,6 @@ static u32 dpll_xa_id;
>>>>>>>>>> 	WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_get_mark(&dpll_device_xa, (d)->id,
>>>>>>>>>> DPLL_REGISTERED))
>>>>>>>>>> #define ASSERT_DPLL_NOT_REGISTERED(d)	\
>>>>>>>>>> 	WARN_ON_ONCE(xa_get_mark(&dpll_device_xa, (d)->id,
>>>>>>>>>> DPLL_REGISTERED))
>>>>>>>>>> -#define ASSERT_PIN_REGISTERED(p)	\
>>>>>>>>>> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_get_mark(&dpll_pin_xa, (p)->id,
>>>>>>>>>> DPLL_REGISTERED))
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> struct dpll_device_registration {
>>>>>>>>>> 	struct list_head list;
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -641,8 +639,6 @@ int dpll_pin_on_pin_register(struct dpll_pin
>>>>>>>>>> *parent,
>>>>>>>>>> struct dpll_pin *pin,
>>>>>>>>>> 	    WARN_ON(!ops->state_on_pin_get) ||
>>>>>>>>>> 	    WARN_ON(!ops->direction_get))
>>>>>>>>>> 		return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>>>> -	if (ASSERT_PIN_REGISTERED(parent))
>>>>>>>>>> -		return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 	mutex_lock(&dpll_lock);
>>>>>>>>>> 	ret = dpll_xa_ref_pin_add(&pin->parent_refs, parent, ops,
>>>>>>>>>> priv); diff
>>>>>>>>>> --git a/drivers/dpll/dpll_netlink.c b/drivers/dpll/dpll_netlink.c
>>>>>>>>>> index
>>>>>>>>>> 963bbbbe6660..ff430f43304f 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/dpll/dpll_netlink.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/dpll/dpll_netlink.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -558,7 +558,7 @@ dpll_pin_event_send(enum dpll_cmd event,
>>>>>>>>>>struct
>>>>>>>>>> dpll_pin *pin)
>>>>>>>>>> 	int ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>>>>> 	void *hdr;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -	if (WARN_ON(!xa_get_mark(&dpll_pin_xa, pin->id,
>>>>>>>>>> DPLL_REGISTERED)))
>>>>>>>>>> +	if (!xa_get_mark(&dpll_pin_xa, pin->id, DPLL_REGISTERED))
>>>>>>>>>> 		return -ENODEV;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 	msg = genlmsg_new(NLMSG_GOODSIZE, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 2.38.1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists