From: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: "Nuno Sá" <noname.nuno@gmail.com>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"Frank Rowand" <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
"Lizhi Hou" <lizhi.hou@amd.com>, "Max Zhen" <max.zhen@amd.com>,
"Sonal Santan" <sonal.santan@amd.com>,
"Stefano Stabellini" <stefano.stabellini@xilinx.com>,
"Jonathan Cameron" <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
"Allan Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@microchip.com>,
"Horatiu Vultur" <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>,
"Steen Hegelund" <steen.hegelund@microchip.com>,
"Luca Ceresoli" <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>,
"Nuno Sa" <nuno.sa@analog.com>,
"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, "Saravana Kannan" <saravanak@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] of: overlay: Synchronize of_overlay_remove() with the devlink removals
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 17:49:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240304174933.7ad023f9@bootlin.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240304152202.GA222088-robh@kernel.org>
Hi Rob,
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 09:22:02 -0600
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
...
> > > @@ -853,6 +854,14 @@ static void free_overlay_changeset(struct
> > > overlay_changeset *ovcs)
> > > {
> > > int i;
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * Wait for any ongoing device link removals before removing some of
> > > + * nodes. Drop the global lock while waiting
> > > + */
> > > + mutex_unlock(&of_mutex);
> > > + device_link_wait_removal();
> > > + mutex_lock(&of_mutex);
> >
> > I'm still not convinced we need to drop the lock. What happens if someone else
> > grabs the lock while we are in device_link_wait_removal()? Can we guarantee that
> > we can't screw things badly?
>
> It is also just ugly because it's the callers of
> free_overlay_changeset() that hold the lock and now we're releasing it
> behind their back.
>
> As device_link_wait_removal() is called before we touch anything, can't
> it be called before we take the lock? And do we need to call it if
> applying the overlay fails?
>
Indeed, having device_link_wait_removal() is not needed when applying the
overlay fails.
I can call device_link_wait_removal() from the caller of_overlay_remove()
but not before the lock is taken.
We need to call it between __of_changeset_revert_notify() and
free_overlay_changeset() and so, the lock is taken.
This lead to the following sequence:
--- 8< ---
int of_overlay_remove(int *ovcs_id)
{
...
mutex_lock(&of_mutex);
...
ret = __of_changeset_revert_notify(&ovcs->cset);
...
ret_tmp = overlay_notify(ovcs, OF_OVERLAY_POST_REMOVE);
...
mutex_unlock(&of_mutex);
device_link_wait_removal();
mutex_lock(&of_mutex);
free_overlay_changeset(ovcs);
...
mutex_unlock(&of_mutex);
...
}
--- 8< ---
In this sequence, the question is:
Do we need to release the mutex lock while device_link_wait_removal() is
called ?
Best regards,
Hervé
--
Hervé Codina, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-04 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-29 10:52 [PATCH v3 0/2] Synchronize DT overlay removal with devlink removals Herve Codina
2024-02-29 10:52 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] driver core: Introduce device_link_wait_removal() Herve Codina
2024-02-29 11:16 ` Nuno Sá
2024-02-29 12:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-02-29 13:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-02-29 13:06 ` Nuno Sá
2024-02-29 13:10 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-02-29 14:00 ` Herve Codina
2024-02-29 10:52 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] of: overlay: Synchronize of_overlay_remove() with the devlink removals Herve Codina
2024-02-29 11:18 ` Nuno Sá
2024-03-04 15:22 ` Rob Herring
2024-03-04 15:36 ` Nuno Sá
2024-03-04 16:49 ` Herve Codina [this message]
2024-03-05 6:47 ` Saravana Kannan
2024-03-05 7:36 ` Nuno Sá
2024-03-05 10:27 ` Herve Codina
2024-03-05 10:47 ` Nuno Sá
2024-03-06 2:59 ` Saravana Kannan
2024-03-04 15:02 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] Synchronize DT overlay removal with " Rob Herring
2024-03-05 6:17 ` Saravana Kannan
2024-03-05 7:17 ` Nuno Sá
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=20240304174933.7ad023f9@bootlin.com \
--to=herve.codina@bootlin.com \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=allan.nielsen@microchip.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=horatiu.vultur@microchip.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizhi.hou@amd.com \
--cc=luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com \
--cc=max.zhen@amd.com \
--cc=noname.nuno@gmail.com \
--cc=nuno.sa@analog.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=saravanak@google.com \
--cc=sonal.santan@amd.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=steen.hegelund@microchip.com \
--cc=stefano.stabellini@xilinx.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).