All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
	Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
	Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
	Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com>,
	"Li, Ming" <ming4.li@intel.com>, <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] PCI/DOE: Remove the pci_doe_flush_mb() call
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2022 11:19:49 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221124111949.00007bd9@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y35Z6fB8Sm4JcPdK@iweiny-desk3>

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 09:35:37 -0800
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 04:34:26PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 07:53:23 -0800
> > ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> >   
> > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Each struct doe_mb is managed as part of the PCI device.  They can't go
> > > away as long as the PCI device exists.  pci_doe_flush_mb() was set up to
> > > flush the workqueue and prevent any further submissions to the mailboxes
> > > when the PCI device goes away.  Unfortunately, this was fundamentally
> > > flawed.  There was no guarantee that a struct doe_mb remained after
> > > pci_doe_flush_mb() returned.  Therefore, the doe_mb state could be
> > > invalid when those threads waiting on the workqueue were flushed.
> > > 
> > > Fortunately the current code is safe because all callers make a
> > > synchronous call to pci_doe_submit_task() and maintain a reference on the
> > > PCI device.
> > > 
> > > For these reasons, pci_doe_flush_mb() will never be called while tasks
> > > are being processed and there is no use for it.
> > > 
> > > Remove the dead code around pci_doe_flush_mb().
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>  
> > 
> > Looks fine I think, though one question inline.
> >    
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/pci/doe.c | 48 ++++-------------------------------------------
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/doe.c b/drivers/pci/doe.c
> > > index e402f05068a5..260313e9052e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pci/doe.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pci/doe.c
> > > @@ -24,10 +24,9 @@
> > >  
> > >  /* Timeout of 1 second from 6.30.2 Operation, PCI Spec r6.0 */
> > >  #define PCI_DOE_TIMEOUT HZ
> > > -#define PCI_DOE_POLL_INTERVAL	(PCI_DOE_TIMEOUT / 128)
> > > +#define PCI_DOE_POLL_INTERVAL	8  
> > 
> > Why this change?    
> 
> msleep_interruptible() takes a millisecond value and wait_event_timeout() takes
> jiffies.  1/128 of a second is ~8ms.
> 
> While for most configs (HZ == 1000) the value does not change.  I don't believe
> this would be true for all configs.  Thus a more explicit define.
> 

Makes sense. Maybe add a postfix as well to make it clear it's not in same units
as the PCI_DOE_TIMEOUT?
PCI_DOE_POLL_INTERVAL_MSECS




> I'll add a comment.
> 
> Ira
> 
> >   
> > >  
> > > -#define PCI_DOE_FLAG_CANCEL	0
> > > -#define PCI_DOE_FLAG_DEAD	1
> > > +#define PCI_DOE_FLAG_DEAD	0
> > >  
> > >  /**
> > >   * struct pci_doe_mb - State for a single DOE mailbox
> > > @@ -53,15 +52,6 @@ struct pci_doe_mb {
> > >  	unsigned long flags;
> > >  };
> > >  
> > > -static int pci_doe_wait(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, unsigned long timeout)
> > > -{
> > > -	if (wait_event_timeout(doe_mb->wq,
> > > -			       test_bit(PCI_DOE_FLAG_CANCEL, &doe_mb->flags),
> > > -			       timeout))
> > > -		return -EIO;
> > > -	return 0;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > >  static void pci_doe_write_ctrl(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, u32 val)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct pci_dev *pdev = doe_mb->pdev;
> > > @@ -82,12 +72,9 @@ static int pci_doe_abort(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb)
> > >  	pci_doe_write_ctrl(doe_mb, PCI_DOE_CTRL_ABORT);
> > >  
> > >  	do {
> > > -		int rc;
> > >  		u32 val;
> > >  
> > > -		rc = pci_doe_wait(doe_mb, PCI_DOE_POLL_INTERVAL);
> > > -		if (rc)
> > > -			return rc;
> > > +		msleep_interruptible(PCI_DOE_POLL_INTERVAL);
> > >  		pci_read_config_dword(pdev, offset + PCI_DOE_STATUS, &val);
> > >  
> > >  		/* Abort success! */
> > > @@ -278,11 +265,7 @@ static void doe_statemachine_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > >  			signal_task_abort(task, -EIO);
> > >  			return;
> > >  		}
> > > -		rc = pci_doe_wait(doe_mb, PCI_DOE_POLL_INTERVAL);
> > > -		if (rc) {
> > > -			signal_task_abort(task, rc);
> > > -			return;
> > > -		}
> > > +		msleep_interruptible(PCI_DOE_POLL_INTERVAL);
> > >  		goto retry_resp;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > @@ -383,21 +366,6 @@ static void pci_doe_destroy_workqueue(void *mb)
> > >  	destroy_workqueue(doe_mb->work_queue);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > -static void pci_doe_flush_mb(void *mb)
> > > -{
> > > -	struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb = mb;
> > > -
> > > -	/* Stop all pending work items from starting */
> > > -	set_bit(PCI_DOE_FLAG_DEAD, &doe_mb->flags);
> > > -
> > > -	/* Cancel an in progress work item, if necessary */
> > > -	set_bit(PCI_DOE_FLAG_CANCEL, &doe_mb->flags);
> > > -	wake_up(&doe_mb->wq);
> > > -
> > > -	/* Flush all work items */
> > > -	flush_workqueue(doe_mb->work_queue);
> > > -}
> > > -
> > >  /**
> > >   * pcim_doe_create_mb() - Create a DOE mailbox object
> > >   *
> > > @@ -450,14 +418,6 @@ struct pci_doe_mb *pcim_doe_create_mb(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 cap_offset)
> > >  		return ERR_PTR(rc);
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > -	/*
> > > -	 * The state machine and the mailbox should be in sync now;
> > > -	 * Set up mailbox flush prior to using the mailbox to query protocols.
> > > -	 */
> > > -	rc = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, pci_doe_flush_mb, doe_mb);
> > > -	if (rc)
> > > -		return ERR_PTR(rc);
> > > -
> > >  	rc = pci_doe_cache_protocols(doe_mb);
> > >  	if (rc) {
> > >  		pci_err(pdev, "[%x] failed to cache protocols : %d\n",  
> >   
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2022-11-24 11:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-22 15:53 [PATCH V2 0/2] PCI/DOE: Remove asynchronous task support ira.weiny
2022-11-22 15:53 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] PCI/DOE: Remove the pci_doe_flush_mb() call ira.weiny
2022-11-22 16:34   ` Jonathan Cameron
2022-11-23 17:35     ` Ira Weiny
2022-11-24 11:19       ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2022-11-22 19:53   ` Lukas Wunner
2022-11-23 17:39     ` Ira Weiny
2022-11-22 15:53 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] PCI/DOE: Remove asynchronous task support ira.weiny
2022-11-22 16:43   ` Jonathan Cameron

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20221124111949.00007bd9@Huawei.com \
    --to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
    --cc=alison.schofield@intel.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=gregory.price@memverge.com \
    --cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lukas@wunner.de \
    --cc=ming4.li@intel.com \
    --cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.