On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 01:45:56PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 07:46:02PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 09:59:54AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > I guess that means that if we apply this revert, the problem Pierre
> > > reported will return. Obviously the deadlock is more important than
> > > the inconsistency Pierre observed, but from the user's point of view
> > > this will look like a regression.
> > >
> > > Maybe listening to netlink and then looking at sysfs isn't the
> > > "correct" way to do this, but I don't want to just casually break
> > > existing user code. If we do contemplate doing the revert, at the
> > > very least we should include specific details about what the user code
> > > *should* do instead, at the level of the actual commands to use
> > > instead of "ip monitor dev; cat ${path}/device/sriov_numvfs".
> >
> > udevadm monitor will do the trick.
> >
> > Another possible solution is to refactor the code to make sure that
> > .probe on VFs happens only after sriov_numvfs is updated.
>
> I like the idea of refactoring it so as to preserve the existing
> ordering while also fixing the deadlock.
I think something like this will be enough (not tested). It will et the number of VFs
before we make VFs visible to probe:
diff --git a/drivers/pci/iov.c b/drivers/pci/iov.c
index aaa33e8dc4c9..0cdfaae80594 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/iov.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/iov.c
@@ -679,12 +679,14 @@ static int sriov_enable(struct pci_dev *dev, int nr_virtfn)
msleep(100);
pci_cfg_access_unlock(dev);
+ iov->num_VFs = nr_virtfn;
rc = sriov_add_vfs(dev, initial);
- if (rc)
+ if (rc) {
+ iov->num_VFs = 0;
goto err_pcibios;
+ }
kobject_uevent(&dev->dev.kobj, KOBJ_CHANGE);
- iov->num_VFs = nr_virtfn;
return 0;
