From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75F1732BF44; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:35:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782398110; cv=none; b=OIjZe5vnx7jPlZ7ANuqYvuFv9Hp74jg7Na7NMmDNfqa22V1qWvJHAdi+1RTQF23Fo5FlQG19YtAxVQiTKZjlPLQeDXWfykUiN9BcDN+lWDyucNKPxbGkWCOYYw48jRyHvYu02UHNwvrJp+Mf5VNVKRnvgsFnciO62DibNSYJONM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782398110; c=relaxed/simple; bh=H9bG13BhBa0fg00IFT72lJyyH7eboXVxNgjjWd947S8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=V+EMXoA8zPT7PEfJt77AOttoG8aQNQNWoZSd+uQurrrufqD4OIALTlatFdL5DpwalkjiR0pGriuo7YK4yM4lEP22baL2VUqS5tnyJOuDr72uiySdhMLUGg4RPfZOtiWasQIsjF2WjqsevP3j4nZUAXgJx4VzE69we6oRqSEayzc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=dSkFo9kQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="dSkFo9kQ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D2141F000E9; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:35:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1782398109; bh=+wFD3Z4KVfOMxeGD6x7jzXk02QR7lT8SFbTHg6iLim4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=dSkFo9kQ3Duzy2coh3AZjrEanzktsml4PVsc7hhHjx1E46Ls/rB7T/4b1kY6c7yoj 7ZBQBzD53BnNlicytToBhMtxxPK5TYaZOHCcR9e9eukQP/Dl7ANuvxGn5RKTEfhZMx z/GAedQVwFV/4/ehgROjCN1hEsZfs0/eizpu72Y2JVGQTVCpV2VHinDyHkqhO1xJMZ jMuWmvBwYPvZcTQYD5XaawdgS7FVaBuCNI3sjw/sQH2L83/GgM2RkSA0V0a/iCG5di HI6Ke0ZKefHf1ZVEL62tkz2IqQHRIUG7ZgLfOHlqotSCEBctcfI4bp4hOzCyBR9GUq 6yy2gcnTDKf9A== From: Pratyush Yadav To: David Matlack Cc: Pasha Tatashin , kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Adithya Jayachandran , Alexander Graf , Alex Williamson , Bjorn Helgaas , Chris Li , David Rientjes , Jacob Pan , Jason Gunthorpe , Jonathan Corbet , Josh Hilke , Leon Romanovsky , Lukas Wunner , Mike Rapoport , Parav Pandit , Pranjal Shrivastava , Pratyush Yadav , Saeed Mahameed , Samiullah Khawaja , Shuah Khan , Vipin Sharma , William Tu , Yi Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/12] PCI: liveupdate: Track incoming preserved PCI devices In-Reply-To: (David Matlack's message of "Mon, 15 Jun 2026 20:29:03 +0000") References: <20260522202410.3104264-1-dmatlack@google.com> <20260522202410.3104264-4-dmatlack@google.com> <178144432039.1257322.9644414453415904478.b4-review@b4> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 16:35:02 +0200 Message-ID: <2vxzechulmcp.fsf@kernel.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Hi David, On Mon, Jun 15 2026, David Matlack wrote: > On 2026-06-14 01:38 PM, Pasha Tatashin wrote: >> On Fri, 22 May 2026 20:24:01 +0000, David Matlack wrote: [...] >> > + } >> > + >> > + pci_info(dev, "Device was preserved by previous kernel across Live Update\n"); >> > + dev->liveupdate.incoming = dev_ser; >> > + >> > + /* >> > + * Hold the ref on the incoming FLB until pci_liveupdate_finish() so >> > + * that dev->liveupdate.incoming does not get freed while it is in use. >> > + */ >> >> How would that work? If finish is not called FLB stays around until the >> next reboot. > > True... I think if the PCI core trusts drivers to call > pci_liveupdate_finish() then we don't need to hold onto the incoming > reference here. That was my point when I was arguing against refcounts on outgoing FLBs. This is very easy to abuse, especially when we are talking about device drivers. And this refcounting mechanism makes the FLB no longer file-lifecycle-bound, since now it is entirely up to drivers to decide the lifecycle of this data. I have been thinking about this a bit more in the last couple days, and I wonder if we are doing this right. Here's an idea I have been thinking of. We should make live update a first class citizen in PCI. Instead of patching in liveupdate via the liveupdate.incoming field, and letting drivers figure out when to use it, we should separate out probe and retrieve paths entirely. Probe and retrieve are fundamentally different operations. While they may share some common initialization logic for the _software_ state, how they interface with the hardware is completely different. I think mixing the two will result in driver code being more spaghetti by having liveupdate checks sprayed out all over. This series doesn't add support for any drivers, but looking at some of the code we have downstream, I see this problem. The liveupdate code is all over the place in the driver and it is very hard to wrap one's head around how the device is actually retrieved. So I think PCI core should track preserved devices, and if the device is preserved, it should skip the probe and wait for retrieve. Retrieve does the full initialization of the device. This fits in with the LUO model as well. You can make retrieve a callback of struct pci_driver and do some wrappers to talk with LUO, so device drivers don't directly interface with LUO at all. We should do similar things on the shutdown path. Shutdown is a fundamentally different operation from freeze, and so we should separate them out as well. This solves the lifetime problem as well. When PCI core is initializing, it knows for sure that no retrievals are going to happen. That's because none of the drivers have registered yet. So it can safely access the FLB and initialize its state. After that, drivers can register themselves and start accepting retrieve() calls. Once the last driver goes away, the FLB is freed automatically. I am sorry for suggesting a big refactor at v6, but the early versions looked good to me at the time, and I only thought more deeply about this when trying to figure out how we can make the lifetimes cleaner. What do you think? Does this make sense? -- Regards, Pratyush Yadav