On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 2:43 AM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 11:27 +0100, Herve Codina wrote:
> > Hi Nuno, Saravana, Rob,
> >
> > On Tue, 05 Mar 2024 08:36:45 +0100
> > Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2024-03-04 at 22:47 -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:49 AM Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 09:22:02 -0600
> > > > > Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > @@ -853,6 +854,14 @@ static void free_overlay_changeset(struct
> > > > > > > > overlay_changeset *ovcs)
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > int i;
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > > > + * Wait for any ongoing device link removals before removing
> > > > > > > > some of
> > > > > > > > + * nodes. Drop the global lock while waiting
> > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > + mutex_unlock(&of_mutex);
> > > > > > > > + device_link_wait_removal();
> > > > > > > > + mutex_lock(&of_mutex);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm still not convinced we need to drop the lock. What happens if
> > > > > > > someone else
> > > > > > > grabs the lock while we are in device_link_wait_removal()? Can we
> > > > > > > guarantee that
> > > > > > > we can't screw things badly?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is also just ugly because it's the callers of
> > > > > > free_overlay_changeset() that hold the lock and now we're releasing it
> > > > > > behind their back.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As device_link_wait_removal() is called before we touch anything,
> > > > > > can't
> > > > > > it be called before we take the lock? And do we need to call it if
> > > > > > applying the overlay fails?
> > > >
> > > > Rob,
> > > >
> > > > This[1] scenario Luca reported seems like a reason for the
> > > > device_link_wait_removal() to be where Herve put it. That example
> > > > seems reasonable.
> > > >
> > > > [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231220181627.341e8789@booty/
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm still not totally convinced about that. Why not putting the check right
> > > before checking the kref in __of_changeset_entry_destroy(). I'll contradict
> > > myself a bit because this is just theory but if we look at pci_stop_dev(),
> > > which
> > > AFAIU, could be reached from a sysfs write(), we have:
> > >
> > > device_release_driver(&dev->dev);
> > > ...
> > > of_pci_remove_node(dev);
> > > of_changeset_revert(np->data);
> > > of_changeset_destroy(np->data);
> > >
> > > So looking at the above we would hit the same issue if we flush the queue in
> > > free_overlay_changeset() - as the queue won't be flushed at all and we could
> > > have devlink removal due to device_release_driver(). Right?
> > >
> > > Again, completely theoretical but seems like a reasonable one plus I'm not
> > > understanding the push against having the flush in
> > > __of_changeset_entry_destroy(). Conceptually, it looks the best place to me
> > > but
> > > I may be missing some issue in doing it there?
> >
> > Instead of having the wait called in __of_changeset_entry_destroy() and so
> > called in a loop. I could move this call in the __of_changeset_entry_destroy()
> > caller (without any of_mutex lock drop).
> >
>
> Oh, good catch! At this point all the devlinks removals (related to the
> changeset) should have been queued so yes, we should only need to flush once.
>
> > So this will look like this:
> > --- 8< ---
> > void of_changeset_destroy(struct of_changeset *ocs)
> > {
> > struct of_changeset_entry *ce, *cen;
> >
> > device_link_wait_removal();
> >
> > list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(ce, cen, &ocs->entries, node)
> > __of_changeset_entry_destroy(ce);
> > }
> > --- 8< ---
> >
> > I already tested on my system and it works correctly with
> > device_link_wait_removal() only called from of_changeset_destroy()
> > as proposed.
> >
> > Saravana, Nuno, Rob does it seems ok for you ?
Looks good to me.
-Saravana
> >
>
> It looks good to me...
>
> - Nuno Sá
> >
>
