Summon Hans and Sakari for the ideas and for heads up (MIPI case can be
affected as well).
On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 12:39:03AM +0000, Hamish Martin wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-03-14 at 15:18 +0200, andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 01:13:31AM +0000, Hamish Martin wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2024-03-13 at 13:26 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
...
> > > Removing the setting of the handle to invalid may be the right fix
> > > but
> > > I don't feel I know the code well enough to make a decision on
> > > that. It
> > > certainly doesn't resolve things immediately - I saw ref counting
> > > warnings output.
> >
> > Not removing, but moving to the better place?
> > Can you share warnings, though?
> >
> For context here is the current call chain that leads to
> acpi_gpiochip_remove():
>
> acpi_gpiochip_remove+0x32/0x1a0
> gpiochip_remove+0x39/0x140
> devres_release_group+0xe6/0x160
> i2c_device_remove+0x2d/0x80
> device_release_driver_internal+0x19a/0x200
> bus_remove_device+0xbf/0x100
> device_del+0x157/0x490
> ? __pfx_device_match_fwnode+0x10/0x10
> ? srso_return_thunk+0x5/0x5f
> device_unregister+0xd/0x30
> i2c_acpi_notify+0x10e/0x160
> notifier_call_chain+0x58/0xd0
> blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x3a/0x60
> acpi_device_del_work_fn+0x85/0x1d0
> process_one_work+0x134/0x2f0
> worker_thread+0x2f0/0x410
> ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
> kthread+0xe3/0x110
> ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> ret_from_fork+0x2f/0x50
> ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x30
Right, and with invalid handle it can't process further.
And note, that _pointer_ is valid, the content become
unavailable.
> I removed the setting of adev->handle = INVALID_ACPI_HANDLE from
> acpi_scan_drop_device() and shifted it to just after the call to
> blocking_notifier_call_chain() in acpi_device_del_work_fn().
> With that it seems things progress further with the call to
> acpi_get_data() in acpi_gpiochip_remove() succeeding now. However,
> later in acpi_gpiochip_free_regions() we hit this error:
>
> pca953x i2c-PRP0001:03: Failed to remove GPIO OpRegion handler
>
> We also get these errors:
> ACPI Warning: Obj 00000000ba6a9600, Reference Count is already zero,
> cannot decrement
> (20230628/utdelete-422)
Right, because of ACPICA (not even ACPI glue layer!) the callbacks are called
when namespace node (which is acpi_handle) is being removed.
I spend a few hours to understand the history of the invalidation of the handle.
TBH, it looks like a hack to me, but its presence seems necessary to avoid racing
with the hotplug work. It's a lot of functions that run asynchronously there
and the validness of some objects is questionable.
Here are the commits in question:
d783156ea384 ("ACPI / scan: Define non-empty device removal handler")
c27b2c33b621 ("ACPI / hotplug: Introduce common hotplug function acpi_device_hotplug()")
(It doesn't mean they are bad, it means that this requires more investigation.)
That said, from my perspective what should be done/clarified
- the scope of ACPI data (Can we use it outside of ACPICA/ACPI glue layer or not?)
- clarify in the documentation the scope / life time of the ACPI objects from
the ACPICA perspective (Is it already done? Where?)
- remove that invalidation hack and find better solution for the race avoidance
> > P.S.
> > I'm not an expert in ACPICA and low lever of ACPI glue layer in the Linux
> > kernel, perhaps Rafael can suggest something better.
> >
> OK, thanks for your help. Hopefully Rafael can add something to the
> discssion.
Added more people to harvest the ideas.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
