From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:11:42 -0600 From: Keith Busch To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Linux PCI , Bjorn Helgaas , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Sinan Kaya , Thomas Tai , "poza@codeaurora.org" , Lukas Wunner , Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 15/20] PCI/pciehp: Fix powerfault detection order Message-ID: <20180918221141.GA26372@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180905203546.21921-1-keith.busch@intel.com> <20180905203546.21921-16-keith.busch@intel.com> <20180906193657.GH214747@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20180906195047.GD31024@localhost.localdomain> <20180907165352.GA250890@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20180907200332.GB250890@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20180907201819.GA1341@localhost.localdomain> <20180918214650.GG13616@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180918214650.GG13616@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> List-ID: On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 02:46:50PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 02:18:19PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 03:03:32PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > I applied this to for-linus with the following changelog. Let me know > > > if I didn't understand this correctly. I changed the comment in > > > pciehp_power_on_slot() so it doesn't say "sticky" to avoid confusion > > > with the PCI spec concept of sticky register bits (ROS, RWS, RW1CS). > > > > Perfect! Thanks for queueing this up. I'll drop this one from the rest > > of the series, which will need at least a v3 to fix a dumb mistake in > > pointed out in review, and I'll get the order to better sense (or maybe > > split into independent patch sets). > > Are you still planning a v3? I really want to get this in for v4.20 > and I think there's probably some integration to be done with Lukas' > series (which I haven't applied yet either). > > I rebased my branches to v4.19-rc4 to avoid a merge conflict Lukas > pointed out. I'll send something out today, and I think I'll split it into multiple independent sets. I had to trim down what this is trying to accomplish due to existing deadlocking bugs I've found in testing: there are several circular dependencies on tasks holding the single pci_rescan_remove_lock. I don't think I'll be able to fix that in time for 4.20, but I'll send the parts that I believe are an improvement that don't break anything else. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8910BC433F4 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 22:09:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F22214C2 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2018 22:09:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 34F22214C2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727782AbeISDo3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:44:29 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:18085 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727690AbeISDo3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:44:29 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Sep 2018 15:09:50 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,391,1531810800"; d="scan'208";a="258380530" Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) ([10.232.112.44]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Sep 2018 15:09:49 -0700 Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:11:42 -0600 From: Keith Busch To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Linux PCI , Bjorn Helgaas , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Sinan Kaya , Thomas Tai , "poza@codeaurora.org" , Lukas Wunner , Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 15/20] PCI/pciehp: Fix powerfault detection order Message-ID: <20180918221141.GA26372@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180905203546.21921-1-keith.busch@intel.com> <20180905203546.21921-16-keith.busch@intel.com> <20180906193657.GH214747@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20180906195047.GD31024@localhost.localdomain> <20180907165352.GA250890@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20180907200332.GB250890@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> <20180907201819.GA1341@localhost.localdomain> <20180918214650.GG13616@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180918214650.GG13616@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20180918221142.6Z9XTbKq74vostB__xjiGiKDZd54MRJwQlcifrv4jWo@z> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 02:46:50PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 02:18:19PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 03:03:32PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > I applied this to for-linus with the following changelog. Let me know > > > if I didn't understand this correctly. I changed the comment in > > > pciehp_power_on_slot() so it doesn't say "sticky" to avoid confusion > > > with the PCI spec concept of sticky register bits (ROS, RWS, RW1CS). > > > > Perfect! Thanks for queueing this up. I'll drop this one from the rest > > of the series, which will need at least a v3 to fix a dumb mistake in > > pointed out in review, and I'll get the order to better sense (or maybe > > split into independent patch sets). > > Are you still planning a v3? I really want to get this in for v4.20 > and I think there's probably some integration to be done with Lukas' > series (which I haven't applied yet either). > > I rebased my branches to v4.19-rc4 to avoid a merge conflict Lukas > pointed out. I'll send something out today, and I think I'll split it into multiple independent sets. I had to trim down what this is trying to accomplish due to existing deadlocking bugs I've found in testing: there are several circular dependencies on tasks holding the single pci_rescan_remove_lock. I don't think I'll be able to fix that in time for 4.20, but I'll send the parts that I believe are an improvement that don't break anything else.