From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
driver-core@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] PCI: Call local_pci_probe() directly if current CPU is in the right node
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:51:11 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260608195111.GA46568@bhelgaas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260607221103.703133-1-longman@redhat.com>
[+cc Thomas, Frederic, Danilo, Tejun, driver-core]
On Sun, Jun 07, 2026 at 06:11:03PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> local_pci_probe() and hence pci_call_probe() can be called
> recursively.
Can we say something about the scenario that results in a recursive
call? Based on the stack trace and the comment below, I guess two of
the scenarios are:
- vmd_probe() creates a new hierarchy below the VMD endpoint and
enumerates it. The pci_bus_add_device() in vmd_enable_domain()
calls .probe() for devices below VMD.
- A PF .probe() calls pci_enable_sriov(), which enables VFs, and the
pci_bus_add_device() in pci_iov_add_virtfn() calls .probe() for
new VFs.
Possible commit log text:
local_pci_probe() and hence pci_call_probe() can be called
recursively, e.g., when vmd_probe() calls .probe() for devices in
the new hierarchy below VMD or a PF .probe() enables VFs and calls
.probe() for them.
> If the recursive calls are done indirectly via workqueue
> kworker, a lockdep recursive warning can be produced.
For non-workqueue experts like me, can we mention the reason why the
warning only affects the workqueue indirect case?
And maybe include a line or two of the actual lockdep warning to help
search engines find this? The stacktrace is good info, but not
specific to the warning.
> Below is the
> stack trace of the lockdep warning on a 4-socket x86-64 Skylake server.
>
> <TASK>
> :
> start_flush_work+0x40b/0x9b0
> __flush_work+0xbd/0x1a0
> pci_call_probe+0x510/0x700
> pci_device_probe+0x17c/0x270
> call_driver_probe+0x68/0x1f0
> really_probe+0x197/0x7b0
> __driver_probe_device+0x32d/0x460
> driver_probe_device+0x49/0x120
> __device_attach_driver+0x162/0x290
> bus_for_each_drv+0x109/0x190
> __device_attach+0x1a2/0x3f0
> device_initial_probe+0x7d/0xa0
> pci_bus_add_device+0x93/0xe0
> pci_bus_add_devices+0x83/0x190
> vmd_enable_domain+0x11fb/0x1b80
> vmd_probe+0x34c/0x4b0
> local_pci_probe+0xdf/0x190
> local_pci_probe_callback+0x35/0x80
> process_one_work+0x919/0x1af0
> worker_thread+0x5a6/0xd10
> :
> </TASK>
>
> The use of work function originally comes from commit 873392ca514f
> ("PCI: work_on_cpu: use in drivers/pci/pci-driver.c") to execute the
> device probing and allocate memory on the right node where the device
> bus is attached to.
>
> In the case of nested device probing within a work function, the current
> CPU is likely to be in the right node already. So there is no point in
> scheduling another work function in the same or a neigboring CPU and wait
> for its completion. It will be more efficient to call local_pci_probe()
> directly when the current CPU is indeed in the right node. That will
> also avoid the lockdep warning due to nested calls to schedule and
> flush a work function.
Out of scope for this patch, but none of the CPU/node selection is
PCI-specific, and neither is the housekeeping cpuset and RCU stuff.
I think this would be improved if we could move the NUMA affinity and
async probe scheduling up to the driver core. There was a little
discussion of that here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20251231165503.GA159243@bhelgaas/
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> ---
> drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> index e3f59001785a..542b22537852 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> @@ -375,6 +375,8 @@ static int pci_call_probe(struct pci_driver *drv, struct pci_dev *dev,
> {
> int error, node, cpu;
> struct drv_dev_and_id ddi = { drv, dev, id };
> + bool node_invalid, cpu_in_node = false;
> + const struct cpumask *node_cpus;
>
> /*
> * Execute driver initialization on node where the device is
> @@ -383,14 +385,27 @@ static int pci_call_probe(struct pci_driver *drv, struct pci_dev *dev,
> */
> node = dev_to_node(&dev->dev);
> dev->is_probed = 1;
> + node_invalid = node < 0 || node >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(node);
> + node_cpus = node_invalid ? cpu_online_mask : cpumask_of_node(node);
> +
> + /*
> + * If the current task is a wq kworker activated by queue_work_on()
> + * below, the kworker is affined to a designated CPU and won't be
> + * switched to another one. So the current CPU can be checked to see
> + * if it is in the right node.
> + */
> + if (current->flags & PF_WQ_WORKER) {
> + cpu_in_node = cpumask_test_cpu(get_cpu(), node_cpus);
> + put_cpu();
> + }
>
> cpu_hotplug_disable();
> /*
> * Prevent nesting work_on_cpu() for the case where a Virtual Function
> - * device is probed from work_on_cpu() of the Physical device.
> + * device is probed from work_on_cpu() of the Physical device or when
> + * the current CPU is in the desired node.
Since we're updating this comment, let's change "Physical device" to
"Physical Function" at the same time to match the spec terminology.
> */
> - if (node < 0 || node >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(node) ||
> - pci_physfn_is_probed(dev)) {
> + if (node_invalid || cpu_in_node || pci_physfn_is_probed(dev)) {
> error = local_pci_probe(&ddi);
> } else {
> struct pci_probe_arg arg = { .ddi = &ddi };
> @@ -404,8 +419,7 @@ static int pci_call_probe(struct pci_driver *drv, struct pci_dev *dev,
> * targets.
> */
> rcu_read_lock();
> - cpu = cpumask_any_and(cpumask_of_node(node),
> - housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_DOMAIN));
> + cpu = cpumask_any_and(node_cpus, housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_DOMAIN));
>
> if (cpu < nr_cpu_ids) {
> struct workqueue_struct *wq = pci_probe_wq;
> --
> 2.54.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-08 19:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-07 22:11 [PATCH v3] PCI: Call local_pci_probe() directly if current CPU is in the right node Waiman Long
2026-06-07 22:20 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-07 23:55 ` Waiman Long
2026-06-08 19:51 ` Bjorn Helgaas [this message]
2026-06-09 17:28 ` Waiman Long
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=20260608195111.GA46568@bhelgaas \
--to=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=driver-core@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@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