On 09/15/2017 01:36 PM, Luca Coelho wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-09-15 at 13:32 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 09/14/2017 02:36 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 09/14/2017 02:04 PM, Srinath Mannam wrote:
>>>> Hi Jens Axboe,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 09/14/2017 11:35 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/14/2017 11:28 AM, Srinath Mannam wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Bjorn,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 09/14/2017 11:11 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [+cc linux-pci]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/12/2017 02:04 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 2017-09-12 at 13:43 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> CC'ing the guilty part and Bjorn. I'm assuming it's the
>>>>>>>>>>>> pci_is_enabled() check, since the rest of the patch shouldn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>> functional changes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and pci_enable_bridge() already checks if it's already enabled, but
>>>>>>>>>>> still enables mastering in that case if it isn't:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> static void pci_enable_bridge(struct pci_dev *dev)
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>> if (pci_is_enabled(dev)) {
>>>>>>>>>>> if (!dev->is_busmaster)
>>>>>>>>>>> pci_set_master(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> so I guess due to the new check we end up with mastering disabled, and
>>>>>>>>>>> thus the firmware can't load since that's a DMA thing?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bjorn/Srinath, any input here? This is a regression that prevents wifi
>>>>>>>>>> from working on a pretty standard laptop. It'd suck to have this be in
>>>>>>>>>> -rc1. Seems like the trivial fix would be:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci.c b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>>>>>>>> index b0002daa50f3..ffbe11dbdd61 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1394,7 +1394,7 @@ static int pci_enable_device_flags(struct pci_dev *dev, unsigned long flags)
>>>>>>>>>> return 0; /* already enabled */
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> bridge = pci_upstream_bridge(dev);
>>>>>>>>>> - if (bridge && !pci_is_enabled(bridge))
>>>>>>>>>> + if (bridge)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With this change and keeping "mutex_lock(&pci_bridge_mutex);" in
>>>>>>> pci_enable_bridge functoin will causes a nexted lock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Took a look, and looks like you are right. That code looks like a mess,
>>>>>> fwiw.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd strongly suggest that the bad commit is reverted until a proper
>>>>>> solution is found, since the simple one-liner could potentially
>>>>>> introduce a deadlock with your patch applied.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, your patch looks pretty bad too, introducing a random mutex
>>>>> deep on code that can be recursive. Why isn't this check in
>>>>> pci_enable_device_flags() enough to prevent double-enable of
>>>>> an upstream bridge?
>>>>>
>>>>> if (atomic_inc_return(&dev->enable_cnt) > 1)
>>>>> return 0; /* already enabled */
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This check only to verify device enable not for the bus master check.
>>>> But device enable function calls the bridge enable if it has the bridge.
>>>> Bridge enable function enables both device and bus master.
>>>>
>>>> Here the issue might be because, bridge of endpoint has already set
>>>> device enable without set bus master in some other context. which is
>>>> wrong.
>>>> because all bridges should enable with bridge_enable function only.
>>>> So we see the problem In this context, because "if (bridge &&
>>>> !pci_is_enabled(bridge))" check stops bridge enable which intern stops
>>>> bus master.
>>>> pci_enable_bridge function always makes sure that both device and bus
>>>> master are enabled in any case. If pci_enable_bridge function is not
>>>> called means, that bridge is already has device enable flag set. which
>>>> is not from pci_enable_bridge function.
>>>
>>> In any case, your patch introduces a regression on systems. Please get
>>> it reverted now, and then you can come up with a new approach to fix the
>>> double enable of the upstream bridge.
>>
>> Who's sending in the revert? I can certainly do it if no one else does,
>> but it needs to be done.
>>
>> I'm not seeing any patches coming out of Srinath to fix up the
>> situation, so we should revert the broken patch until a better solution
>> exists.
>
> Bjorn already sent it:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/15/46
Huh ok, I would have thought the various folks in this discussion would
have been CC'ed on that. But good to know, that takes care of my
concern.
--
Jens Axboe
