From: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>,
Stuart Yoder <stuyoder@gmail.com>,
Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com>,
Nipun Gupta <nipun.gupta@amd.com>,
Nikhil Agarwal <nikhil.agarwal@amd.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] iommu: Get DT/ACPI parsing into the proper probe path
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 14:58:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f55869ea-0a96-4cef-b394-7c6bf0359617@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z_52heGno2Y5M6uF@hovoldconsulting.com>
On 15/04/2025 4:08 pm, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 04:37:59PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> On 2025-04-11 9:02 am, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 03:46:33PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>
>>>> @@ -155,7 +155,12 @@ int of_iommu_configure(struct device *dev, struct device_node *master_np,
>>>> dev_iommu_free(dev);
>>>> mutex_unlock(&iommu_probe_device_lock);
>>>>
>>>> - if (!err && dev->bus)
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * If we're not on the iommu_probe_device() path (as indicated by the
>>>> + * initial dev->iommu) then try to simulate it. This should no longer
>>>> + * happen unless of_dma_configure() is being misused outside bus code.
>>>> + */
>>>
>>> This assumption does not hold as there is nothing preventing iommu
>>> driver probe from racing with a client driver probe.
>>
>> Not sure I follow - *this* assumption is that if we arrived here with
>> dev->iommu already allocated then __iommu_probe_device() is already in
>> progress for this device, either in the current callchain or on another
>> thread, and so we can (and should) skip calling into it again. There's
>> no ambiguity about that.
>
> I was referring to the this "should no longer happen unless
> of_dma_configure() is being misused outside bus code" claim, which
> appears to be false given the splat below.
That's not an assumption so much as a statement of intent. And really
it's the other way round anyway, as a reminder that this replay call is
only still here (unlike in the ACPI path) because there *is* still
plenty of sketchy usage of of_dma_configure() which I'm wary of breaking.
>>>> + if (!err && dev->bus && !dev_iommu_present)
>>>> err = iommu_probe_device(dev);
>>>>
>>>> if (err && err != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>>>
>>> I hit the (now moved) dev_WARN() on the ThinkPad T14s where the GPU SMMU
>>> is probed late due to a clock dependency and can end up probing in
>>> parallel with the GPU driver.
>>
>> And what *should* happen is that the GPU driver probe waits for the
>> IOMMU driver probe to finish. Do you have fw_devlink enabled?
>
> Yes, but you shouldn't rely on devlinks for correctness.
>
> That said it does seem like something is not working as you think it is
> here, and indeed the iommu supplier link is not created until SMMUv2
> probe_device() (see arm_smmu_probe_device()).
>
> So client devices can start to be probed (bus dma_configure() is called)
> before their iommu is ready also with devlinks enabled (and I do see
> this happen on every boot).
I didn't mean the explicit power management links created by the SMMU
driver itself, I meant the fwnode links created automatically by
fw_devlink_link_device() at device_add() time, which infer a
supplier-consumer relationship from the "iommus" DT property, wherein
device_links_check_suppliers() would then defer the GPU driver probe
until the SMMU driver probe has completed successfully probing and
called device_links_driver_bound().
Except it turns out that "iommus" is one of the optional properties
which are only linked that way under "fw_devlink=strict", so that
explains that, fair enough.
>>> [ 3.805282] arm-smmu 3da0000.iommu: probing hardware configuration...
>
>>> [ 3.829042] platform 3d6a000.gmu: Adding to iommu group 8
>>>
>>> [ 3.992050] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>> [ 3.993045] adreno 3d00000.gpu: late IOMMU probe at driver bind, something fishy here!
>>> [ 3.994058] WARNING: CPU: 9 PID: 343 at drivers/iommu/iommu.c:579 __iommu_probe_device+0x2b0/0x4ac
>>>
>>> [ 4.003272] CPU: 9 UID: 0 PID: 343 Comm: kworker/u50:2 Not tainted 6.15.0-rc1 #109 PREEMPT
>>> [ 4.003276] Hardware name: LENOVO 21N2ZC5PUS/21N2ZC5PUS, BIOS N42ET83W (2.13 ) 10/04/2024
>>>
>>> [ 4.025943] Call trace:
>>> [ 4.025945] __iommu_probe_device+0x2b0/0x4ac (P)
>>> [ 4.030453] iommu_probe_device+0x38/0x7c
>>> [ 4.030455] of_iommu_configure+0x188/0x26c
>>> [ 4.030457] of_dma_configure_id+0xcc/0x300
>>> [ 4.030460] platform_dma_configure+0x74/0xac
>>> [ 4.030462] really_probe+0x74/0x38c
>>
>> Indeed this is exactly what is *not* supposed to be happening - does
>> this patch help at all?
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iommu/09d901ad11b3a410fbb6e27f7d04ad4609c3fe4a.1741706365.git.robin.murphy@arm.com/
>
> I've only seen that splat once so far so I don't have a reliable
> reproducer.
>
> But AFAICS that patch won't help help here where we appear to have iommu
> probe racing with bus dma_configure() called from really_probe() for the
> client device.
Well, tightening up __iommu_probe_device() would stand to slightly
reduce the window in general while bus_set_iommu() is running. However
you're right that this is a different race from the ones implicated
there. I have now managed to provoke it on my Juno board with
"driver_async_probe=*" (which does also require that patch for other
reasons), and I think I've got a reasonable fix which I shall finish
writing up and send shortly. Thanks for helping me nail this one down!
Cheers,
Robin.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-24 13:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-28 15:46 [PATCH v2 0/4] iommu: Fix the longstanding probe issues Robin Murphy
2025-02-28 15:46 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] iommu: Handle race with default domain setup Robin Murphy
2025-02-28 15:46 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] iommu: Resolve ops in iommu_init_device() Robin Murphy
2025-03-05 17:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-02-28 15:46 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] iommu: Keep dev->iommu state consistent Robin Murphy
2025-03-05 18:14 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-02-28 15:46 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] iommu: Get DT/ACPI parsing into the proper probe path Robin Murphy
2025-03-05 18:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-03-07 14:24 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2025-03-07 20:20 ` Robin Murphy
2025-03-11 18:42 ` Joerg Roedel
2025-03-12 7:07 ` Baolu Lu
2025-03-12 10:10 ` Robin Murphy
2025-03-12 14:34 ` Baolu Lu
2025-03-12 15:21 ` Joerg Roedel
2025-03-13 9:56 ` Marek Szyprowski
2025-03-13 11:01 ` Robin Murphy
2025-03-13 12:23 ` Marek Szyprowski
2025-03-13 13:06 ` Robin Murphy
2025-03-13 14:12 ` Robin Murphy
2025-03-17 7:37 ` Marek Szyprowski
2025-03-17 18:22 ` Robin Murphy
2025-03-21 12:15 ` Marek Szyprowski
2025-03-21 16:48 ` Robin Murphy
2025-04-01 20:34 ` Marek Szyprowski
2025-03-13 16:30 ` Anders Roxell
2025-03-18 16:37 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-03-18 17:24 ` Robin Murphy
2025-03-25 15:32 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-03-27 9:47 ` Chen-Yu Tsai
2025-03-27 11:00 ` Louis-Alexis Eyraud
2025-04-11 8:02 ` Johan Hovold
2025-04-14 15:37 ` Robin Murphy
2025-04-15 15:08 ` Johan Hovold
2025-04-24 13:58 ` Robin Murphy [this message]
2025-04-21 21:19 ` William McVicker
2025-04-22 19:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-04-22 21:55 ` William McVicker
2025-04-22 23:41 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-04-23 17:31 ` William McVicker
2025-04-23 18:18 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-08-11 16:44 ` Eric Auger
2025-08-11 17:01 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2026-03-23 17:18 ` Tudor Ambarus
2026-03-23 20:49 ` Robin Murphy
2026-04-01 11:49 ` Tudor Ambarus
2025-03-10 8:29 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] iommu: Fix the longstanding probe issues Joerg Roedel
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=f55869ea-0a96-4cef-b394-7c6bf0359617@arm.com \
--to=robin.murphy@arm.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=lpieralisi@kernel.org \
--cc=nikhil.agarwal@amd.com \
--cc=nipun.gupta@amd.com \
--cc=quic_charante@quicinc.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=saravanak@google.com \
--cc=stuyoder@gmail.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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