(2011/11/17 6:23), Yinghai Lu wrote:
On 11/15/2011 09:54 PM, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
Sorry for the delayed comment.
I don't think allocating new memory for device removal is good idea. And
your code doesn't seem to work if memory allocation failed. What about
something like below? Note that it is not tested at all, sorry.
Yes, it should work.
I updated the patch, use list_entry_for_each directly. also remove VF checking.
Please check it.
Thanks
Yinghai
Subject: [PATCH -v3] PCI: Make sriov work with hotplug remove
When hot remove pci express module that have pcie switch and support SRIOV, got
[ 5918.610127] pciehp 0000:80:02.2:pcie04: pcie_isr: intr_loc 1
[ 5918.615779] pciehp 0000:80:02.2:pcie04: Attention button interrupt received
[ 5918.622730] pciehp 0000:80:02.2:pcie04: Button pressed on Slot(3)
[ 5918.629002] pciehp 0000:80:02.2:pcie04: pciehp_get_power_status: SLOTCTRL a8 value read 1f9
[ 5918.637416] pciehp 0000:80:02.2:pcie04: PCI slot #3 - powering off due to button press.
[ 5918.647125] pciehp 0000:80:02.2:pcie04: pcie_isr: intr_loc 10
[ 5918.653039] pciehp 0000:80:02.2:pcie04: pciehp_green_led_blink: SLOTCTRL a8 write cmd 200
[ 5918.661229] pciehp 0000:80:02.2:pcie04: pciehp_set_attention_status: SLOTCTRL a8 write cmd c0
[ 5924.667627] pciehp 0000:80:02.2:pcie04: Disabling domain:bus:device=0000:b0:00
[ 5924.674909] pciehp 0000:80:02.2:pcie04: pciehp_get_power_status: SLOTCTRL a8 value read 2f9
[ 5924.683262] pciehp 0000:80:02.2:pcie04: pciehp_unconfigure_device: domain:bus:dev = 0000:b0:00
[ 5924.693976] libfcoe_device_notification: NETDEV_UNREGISTER eth6
[ 5924.764979] libfcoe_device_notification: NETDEV_UNREGISTER eth14
[ 5924.873539] libfcoe_device_notification: NETDEV_UNREGISTER eth15
[ 5924.995209] libfcoe_device_notification: NETDEV_UNREGISTER eth16
[ 5926.114407] sxge 0000:b2:00.0: PCI INT A disabled
[ 5926.119342] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at (null)
[ 5926.127189] IP: [<ffffffff81353a3b>] pci_stop_bus_device+0x33/0x83
[ 5926.133377] PGD 0
[ 5926.135402] Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP
[ 5926.138659] CPU 2
[ 5926.140499] Modules linked in:
...
[ 5926.143754]
[ 5926.275823] Call Trace:
[ 5926.278267] [<ffffffff81353a38>] pci_stop_bus_device+0x30/0x83
[ 5926.284180] [<ffffffff81353af4>] pci_remove_bus_device+0x1a/0xba
[ 5926.290264] [<ffffffff81366311>] pciehp_unconfigure_device+0x110/0x17b
[ 5926.296866] [<ffffffff81365dd9>] ? pciehp_disable_slot+0x188/0x188
[ 5926.303123] [<ffffffff81365d6f>] pciehp_disable_slot+0x11e/0x188
[ 5926.309206] [<ffffffff81365e68>] pciehp_power_thread+0x8f/0xe0
...
+-[0000:80]-+-00.0-[81-8f]--
| +-01.0-[90-9f]--
| +-02.0-[a0-af]--
| +-02.2-[b0-bf]----00.0-[b1-b3]--+-02.0-[b2]--+-00.0 Device
| | | +-00.1 Device
| | | +-00.2 Device
| | | \-00.3 Device
| | \-03.0-[b3]--+-00.0 Device
| | +-00.1 Device
| | +-00.2 Device
| | \-00.3 Device
root complex: 80:02.2
pci express modules: have pcie switch and are listed as b0:00.0, b1:02.0 and b1:03.0.
end devices are b2:00.0 and b3.00.0.
VFs are: b2:00.1,... b2:00.3, and b3:00.1,...,b3:00.3
Root cause: when doing pci_stop_bus_device() with phys fn, it will stop virt fn and
remove the fn, so
list_for_each_safe(l, n,&bus->devices)
will have problem to refer freed n that is pointed to vf entry.
Solution is just replacing list_for_each_safe() with list_for_each().
pci_stop_bus_device(dev) will not remove dev from bus->devices list,
so We only need use for_each here.
During reviewing the patch, Bjorn said:
| The PCI hot-remove path calls pci_stop_bus_devices() via
| pci_remove_bus_device().
|
| pci_stop_bus_devices() traverses the bus->devices list (point A below),
| stopping each device in turn, which calls the driver remove() method. When
| the device is an SR-IOV PF, the driver calls pci_disable_sriov(), which
| also uses pci_remove_bus_device() to remove the VF devices from the
| bus->devices list (point B).
|
| pci_remove_bus_device
| pci_stop_bus_device
| pci_stop_bus_devices(subordinate)
| list_for_each(bus->devices)<-- A
| pci_stop_bus_device(PF)
| ...
| driver->remove
| pci_disable_sriov
| ...
| pci_remove_bus_device(VF)
|<remove from bus_list> <-- B
|
| At B, we're changing the same list we're iterating through at A, so when
| the driver remove() method returns, the pci_stop_bus_devices() iterator has
| a pointer to a list entry that has already been freed.
Discussion thread can be found : https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/15/141
-v2: updated changelog.
-v3: According to Kenji, do not allocate another list for PF.
Also We don't need to check dev->is_virtfn anymore, because PF should come first
in the list, and even VF come first, it is still ok.
I think we should not have an assumption that PF comes first in
the list. So I think dev->is_virtfn check is needed.
On the other hand, if we add the dev->is_virtfn check,
pci_stop_bus_devices() doesn't work for buses whose &bus->devices
list have only VFs(, though I think pci_stop_bus_devices() is not
used for this kind of bus currently). How about adding the
pci_stop_bus_device() loop for VFs after the loop for PFs, as you
did in your first try?
Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu<yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pci/remove.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/drivers/pci/remove.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/pci/remove.c
+++ linux-2.6/drivers/pci/remove.c
@@ -122,11 +122,24 @@ void pci_remove_behind_bridge(struct pci
static void pci_stop_bus_devices(struct pci_bus *bus)
{
- struct list_head *l, *n;
+ struct list_head *l;
- list_for_each_safe(l, n,&bus->devices) {
+ /*
+ * pci_stop_bus_device(dev) will not remove dev from bus->devices list,
+ * so We don't need use _safe version for_each here.
+ * Also _safe version has problem when pci_stop_bus_device() for PF try
+ * to remove VFs.
+ */
+ list_for_each(l,&bus->devices) {
struct pci_dev *dev = pci_dev_b(l);
pci_stop_bus_device(dev);
+ /*
+ * VFs are removed by pci_remove_bus_device() in the
+ * pci_stop_bus_devices() code path for PF.
+ * aka, bus->devices get updated in the process.
+ * barrier() will make sure we get right next from that list.
+ */
+ barrier();
I think we should not use list_for_each() because
- difficult to understand the intention of the barrier().
- might not work if list_for_each() implementation were changed.
Regards,
Kenji Kaneshige
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
