On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 10:52:57PM +0530, Amey Narkhede wrote:
> On 21/03/25 06:09PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 08:55:04AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 10:37:54 +0200
> > > Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:17:29AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 17:13:56 +0200
> > > > > Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <...>
> > > >
> > > > > > Yes, and real testing/debugging almost always requires kernel rebuild.
> > > > > > Everything else is waste of time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, this is nonsense. Allowing users to debug issues without a full
> > > > > kernel rebuild is a good thing.
> > > >
> > > > It is far from debug, this interface doesn't give you any answers why
> > > > the reset didn't work, it just helps you to find the one that works.
> > > >
> > > > Unless you believe that this information will be enough to understand
> > > > the root cause, you will need to ask from the user to perform extra
> > > > tests, maybe try some quirk. All of that requires from the users to
> > > > rebuild their kernel.
> > > >
> > > > So no, it is not debug.
> > >
> > > It allows a user to experiment to determine (a) my device doesn't work
> > > in a given scenario with the default configuration, but (b) if I change
> > > the reset to this other thing it does work. That is a step in
> > > debugging.
> > >
> > > It's absurd to think that a sysfs attribute could provide root cause,
> > > but it might be enough for someone to further help that user. It would
> > > be a useful clue for a bug report. Yes, reaching root cause might
> > > involve building a kernel, but that doesn't invalidate that having a
> > > step towards debugging in the base kernel might be a useful tool.
> >
> > Let's agree to do not agree.
> >
> > >
> > > > > > > > > For policy preference, I already described how I've configured QEMU to
> > > > > > > > > prefer a bus reset rather than a PM reset due to lack of specification
> > > > > > > > > regarding the scope of a PM "soft reset". This interface would allow a
> > > > > > > > > system policy to do that same thing.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't think anyone is suggesting this as a means to avoid quirks that
> > > > > > > > > would resolve reset issues and create the best default general behavior.
> > > > > > > > > This provides a mechanism to test various reset methods, and thereby
> > > > > > > > > identify broken methods, and set a policy. Sure, that policy might be
> > > > > > > > > to avoid a broken reset in the interim before it gets quirked and
> > > > > > > > > there's potential for abuse there, but I think the benefits outweigh
> > > > > > > > > the risks.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This interface is proposed as first class citizen in the general sysfs
> > > > > > > > layout. Of course, it will be seen as a way to bypass the kernel.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > At least, put it under CONFIG_EXPERT option, so no distro will enable it
> > > > > > > > by default.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Of course we're proposing it to be accessible, it should also require
> > > > > > > admin privileges to modify, sysfs has lots of such things. If it's
> > > > > > > relegated to non-default accessibility, it won't be used for testing
> > > > > > > and it won't be available for system policy and it's pointless.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We probably have difference in view of what testing is. I expect from
> > > > > > the users who experience issues with reset to do extra steps and one of
> > > > > > them is to require from them to compile their kernel.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would define the ability to generate a CI test that can pick a
> > > > > device, unbind it from its driver, and iterate reset methods as a
> > > > > worthwhile improvement in testing.
> > > >
> > > > Who is going to run this CI? At least all kernel CIs (external and
> > > > internal to HW vendors) that I'm familiar are building kernel themselves.
> > > >
> > > > Distro kernel is too bloat to be really usable for CI.
> > >
> > > At this point I'm suspicious you're trolling. A distro kernel CI
> > > certainly uses the kernel they intend to ship and support in their
> > > environment. You're concerned about a bloated kernel, but the proposal
> > > here adds 2-bytes per device to track reset methods and a trivial array
> > > in text memory, meanwhile you're proposing multiple per-device memory
> > > allocations to enhance the feature you think is too bloated for CI.
> >
> > I don't know why you decided to focus on memory footprint which is not
> > important at all during CI runs. The bloat is in Kconfig options that
> > are not needed. Those extra options add significant overhead during
> > builds and runs itself.
> >
> > And not, I'm not trolling, but representing HW vendor that pushes its CI
> > and developers environment to the limit, by running full kernel builds with
> > less than 30 seconds and boot-to-test with less than 6 seconds for full
> > Fedora VM.
> >
> > >
> > > > > > The root permissions doesn't protect from anything, SO lovers will use
> > > > > > root without even thinking twice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, with great power comes great responsibility. Many admins ignore
> > > > > this. That's far beyond the scope of this series.
> > > >
> > > > <...>
> > > >
> > > > > > I'm trying to help you with your use case of providing reset policy
> > > > > > mechanism, which can be without CONFIG_EXPERT. However if you want
> > > > > > to continue path of having specific reset type only, please ensure
> > > > > > that this is not taken to the "bypass kernel" direction.
> > > > >
> > > > > You've lost me, are you saying you'd be in favor of an interface that
> > > > > allows an admin to specify an arbitrary list of reset methods because
> > > > > that's somehow more in line with a policy choice than a userspace
> > > > > workaround? This seems like unnecessary bloat because (a) it allows
> > > > > the same bypass mechanism, and (b) a given device is only going to use
> > > > > a single method anyway, so the functionality is unnecessary. Please
> > > > > help me understand how this favors the policy use case. Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > The policy decision is global logic that is easier to grasp. At some
> > > > point of our discussion, you presented the case where PM reset is not
> > > > defined well and you prefer to do bus reset (something like that).
> > > >
> > > > I expect that QEMU sets same reset policy for all devices at the same
> > > > time instead of trying per-device to guess which one works.
> > > >
> > > > And yes, you will be able to bypass kernel, but at least this interface
> > > > will be broader than initial one that serves only SO and workarounds.
> > >
> > > I still think allocating objects for a list and managing that list is
> > > too bloated and complicated, but I agree that being able to have more
> > > fine grained control could be useful. Is it necessary to be able to
> > > re-order reset methods or might it still be better aligned to a policy
> > > use case if we allow plus and minus operators? For example, a device
> > > might list:
> > >
> > > [pm] [bus]
> > >
> > > Indicating that PM and bus reset are both available and enabled. The
> > > user could do:
> > >
> > > echo -pm > reset_methods
> > >
> > > This would result in:
> > >
> > > pm [bus]
> > >
> > > Indicating that both PM and bus resets are available, but only bus reset
> > > is enabled (note this is the identical result to "echo bus >" in the
> > > current proposal). "echo +pm" or "echo default" could re-enable the PM
> > > reset. Would something like that be satisfactory?
> >
> > Yes, I actually imagined simpler interface:
> > To set specific type:
> > echo pm > reset_methods
> > To set policy:
> > echo "pm,bus" > reset_methods
> >
> > But your proposal is nicer.
> >
> Okay I'll include this in v2
> > >
> > > If we need to allow re-ording, we'd want to use a byte-array where each
> > > byte indicates a type of reset and perhaps a non-zero value in the
> > > array indicates the method is enabled and the value indicates priority.
> > > For example writing "dev_spec,flr,bus" would parse to write 1 to the
> > > byte associated with the device specific reset, 2 to flr, 3 to bus
> > > reset, then we'd process low to high (or maybe starting at a high value
> > > to count down to zero might be more simple). We could do that with
> > > only adding less than a fixed 8-bytes per device and no dynamic
> > > allocation. Thoughts? Thanks,
> >
> > Like I suggested, linked list will be easier and the reset will be
> > something like:
> > for_each_reset_type(device, type) {
> > switch (type) {
> > case PM:
> > ret = do_some_reset(device);
> > break;
> > case BUS:
> > .....
> > }
> > if (!ret || ret == -ENOMEM) <-- go to next type in linked list
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> Maybe we can use a byte array here. Lets consider current pci_reset_fn_methods
> array. If a input is "pm, flr" we can have byte array with index of
> those methods in pci_reset_fn_methods like [3, 1]. So when user triggers a
> reset we use reset method at index 3(pm) and then at index 1(flr).
> Does that make sense?
I'm not worried about in-kernel implementation, we will rewrite it if
needed. The most important part is user visible ABI, which we won't be
able to fix.
Thanks
>
> Thanks,
> Amey
