From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr1-f43.google.com (mail-wr1-f43.google.com [209.85.221.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF7E63314D2 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2026 05:39:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.43 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791783580; cv=none; b=ZpR7eGIpnuIsoBxk2FeS2aH0MsoSQPJ007IhNHJJVdxiR556kw8X30OznBN397luo/oOZN4kX6Dvi54/repRJpK7XYY5gGGTEs4yUGUhPcxKrZrOTIdTBdZDyoOPQNeqfPcFwkNW4VJYj4MPe/108sQZqoNESBHhxaTAa/SVubk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1791783580; c=relaxed/simple; bh=isBheQLeKAY5dxqOJZH2ZRXNAaY0Nthmt1h9j1n7eHg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nhkY4532CGxtwME5JvuOjsd4AVCukx+9oVMIrKIWWPpfTzWU1xD9oTE9zVMhdV5uYQUqY2iJAXDz9cINSi6uaGytJ+luqs23+Vx3JvQTMUMOtezN8dunAOOzVenIL/P/sgJdVArpGozB41xM8vpGmeiYgBiWVWPwhaJJp08aQek= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=HGEqlk/Z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.221.43 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="HGEqlk/Z" Received: by mail-wr1-f43.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-48b060ec084so782370f8f.0 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2026 22:39:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1791783577; x=1792388377; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=Wvj1e9kOAVq32mjSLwnmk3hLx877zXEe563JlOy1xlw=; b=HGEqlk/ZFDEiZsvrWqwtEEWQ9peEMX3xSLYHEaLVPtB2Z3G1MOFdVrvSPgxLODfHiq XhOSgFePCLyBinC/YOJWLE52fi8ITiE/Ue02onvniC/5THnQpu3BCi+EgSuGd/jAWyZ6 JTWOgrEA926WZrc39qPBwt+SCVgMagaikyPOB/XsuEIyo3AzeQFe48ceiO6c64uEx/bR D78xurCWfZWYAPexo7nKNxqyf74uG6v7kA85Id+gs78utmRff1zqDWEABomkJtJeFdGq /W7FV9OOMY0JVA+fOFSAsgDJ3GafubezzVIdF/+AoS/Thk5Nl98BOOBB/x8qsgny02k1 2GAA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20260707; t=1791783577; x=1792388377; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=Wvj1e9kOAVq32mjSLwnmk3hLx877zXEe563JlOy1xlw=; b=sKd7/EeLQdbA05xfmyn3tKTa8Q8l4hk16D7P1yYD66ETgjWcehnhGUY0Wb2/xf3YSJ Qymg2oqckvNXNcKp8Zpu7W7jswa1UUBGhA/H2CTm2IR07EYukDjGKgKUDI4uWS6OFiQu weCSUNKTWKB+fagLUlTLjctIKYtMhK9BkxBcvvuIqoC9EbdyaaOO5JP0MGGOaDuoHjXw ZHYa89//EVBZ1SpVp9Ba8vCqUs/RVB6uuDDZpqYDmkEVWYC4Irl2+uuvVuMsz+aSsnu0 BY8Vi3xLZtbXefZIzHYJV+Lg+D66lopkd98ony30dSAayK+W45PVK+EgiYcd2Zn4j7WA /KHQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AKwUvBxgdscmP8UILucpmL7+0WUQJlE9ZESGo0Z8w4hunngIJpxNxcA2mnlJI04D1OcSoFXd9L/e0+lDyMA=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AFq9FYI3H1JCZRM9ERzIt+mpupF77UBi3oAUeR5I8WGV51OECYNhnr0E YR+C/FbEUGK7NQPOOpLI5MR6ItpLTGSm47dgAIcOCo32N1+ZRBzNi6cB X-Gm-Gg: AYBFou2XrIQbFPxnWEfrY28HsdKT1QsE5Y6bXdpZgrqI6IdHxNz53a99CgDskliHp6O qXoH7vJc3XEDlnBW7bzk44PCC07nMMaOirZqaIwGQ4St1A3IFhFgkow0gDL0+9fr2Mu5sEyNS+N NS9xs5sR2YowahdBdoZOUHeAK50UXOmgPhsAMdzt/8X22o79f3EMC00fRu8+9YDauH+CpGGP9F3 sCWkLrqqb+ESGEwfLigCW8mXmAsAN6GoWbhBS6ji1W7itGwD653naiuleIeE4+9xUQ+0Y625u8X i238EjyiwKqGv91AJ8b7D7SrBRiuROmqnUr3ir/A2MifQfsRxZoZK6ghSkp6WNJJ2zungAgi3Ca GB87hwzJZ9j9KFxm9Gb9iM8+kJx4z0bJ9cwBv4RpqxJK21XT0tQGdOUA+fxLTxWHBsalE5K6usu aP22CeqOk/lMyzgBTApG14lC/C4DhiGYrSUHHdfLpctU3JDJP62BSN6m/4kdD1t9vcmqyA/OBdf GNnvtqcfDnONcIJj9J0PQKvFPr8UIeTmt17pVczpti8QVYbG++tdA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:238a:b0:48a:fc9d:fbba with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-48dba7b330cmr15538148f8f.1.1791783577000; Sun, 11 Oct 2026 22:39:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home-desktop (dynamic-002-214-019-128.2.214.pool.telefonica.de. [2.214.19.128]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-48db93d6069sm16638776f8f.0.2026.10.11.22.39.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 11 Oct 2026 22:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 07:39:34 +0200 From: Abhin Parekadan Jose To: Bjorn Helgaas , Lukas Wunner , "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: Ilpo =?utf-8?B?SsOkcnZpbmVu?= , Shuai Xue , Kees Cook , Mahesh J Salgaonkar , Oliver O'Halloran , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 0/5] PCI: pciehp: Report surprise removal during safe removal Message-ID: References: <20260927182017.938565-1-abhinjoses@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260927182017.938565-1-abhinjoses@gmail.com> Gentle ping on this RFC. Lukas, Bjorn, could you let me know whether the general direction is acceptable before I work on a non-RFC version? Any comments on the approach would help. Thanks, Abhin On Sun, Sep 27, 2026 at 06:20:11PM +0000, Abhin Parekadan Jose wrote: > If a safe removal is already in progress when the device is surprise > removed, pciehp cannot report the disconnect [1]. The removal blocks > waiting on a device interrupt or status read, and pciehp's IRQ thread is > single-threaded and is itself executing that removal, so it never runs > again to report the device gone. The removal hangs indefinitely. > > pciehp_isr() does run while the IRQ thread is blocked, but pciehp_ist() > must ignore link and presence changes caused by Secondary Bus Reset or > DPC, and telling those apart takes seconds which cannot be spent in > hardirq. > > Patch 4 does not do that work in hardirq. pciehp_isr() only checks > whether the card is present or the link is active, and defers the rest > to a work item in process context. The work item does not need to know > why the link changed, only whether the card is gone: it waits for DPC > recovery or a Secondary Bus Reset in progress to complete, then checks > again under reset_lock, and if the card is absent and the link is down > marks the devices below disconnected, which schedules the driver's > disconnect work from patch 1. pciehp_ist() is unchanged and > remains the only consumer of the one-shot flags PCI_DPC_RECOVERED and > PCI_LINK_CHANGED, which tell it whether a link change can be ignored. > > Patches: > > 1/5 Michael's "PCI: Report surprise removal event" from his RFC v5, > which adds disconnect_work_enable and pdev->disconnect_work. > Changed to serialize disconnect_work_enable with a per-device > spinlock. > > 2/5 Add pci_hp_wait_link_change(), which awaits a Secondary Bus Reset > in progress without consuming PCI_LINK_CHANGED. > > 3/5 Add pci_dpc_wait_recovery(), which awaits DPC recovery without > consuming PCI_DPC_RECOVERED. > > 4/5 The pciehp change. Adds disconnect_work to struct controller, > scheduled from pciehp_isr() on PDC or DLLSC when neither Presence > Detect State nor Data Link Layer Link Active indicates a card. > > 5/5 A POC driver for the QEMU edu device that blocks in remove() > waiting for an interrupt, standing in for del_gendisk() stuck in > blk_mq_freeze_queue_wait(). Not for merge -- included so the > hang can be reproduced. > > Changes since RFC v3 [5]: > > - 5/5: Reinitialize the completion in remove() before requesting the > delayed interrupt, so that an earlier completion cannot let remove() > return while the interrupt is still pending. (Sashiko) > - 1/5 to 4/5: No changes. > > Changes since RFC v2 [4]: > > - 1/5: Protect disconnect_work_enable with a per-device spinlock, held > while testing it and scheduling the work, instead of lockless > accesses and barriers. pci_dev_set_disconnected() could otherwise > test the flag, get preempted, and queue the work while a newly bound > driver re-initializes it. With the lock, cancel_work_sync() is > sufficient again, so go back to it from disable_work_sync(). > (Sashiko) > - 2/5: Test PCI_LINK_CHANGING with test_bit_acquire(), so that the > caller's subsequent accesses are ordered after the end of the code > section even if wait_event() returns without sleeping. (Sashiko) > - 3/5, 4/5, 5/5: No changes. > > Changes since RFC v1 [2]: > > - 1/5: Use disable_work_sync() instead of cancel_work_sync() in > pci_clear_disconnect_work(), so that a racing schedule_work() cannot > queue the work after remove() has returned. (Sashiko) > - 2/5, 3/5: New. > - 4/5: Drop schedule_notification_work(); pci_dev_set_disconnected() > schedules the driver's disconnect work for all callers again. > (Michael) > - 4/5: Don't consume PCI_DPC_RECOVERED and PCI_LINK_CHANGED in the > work item. In v1 it ran the same spurious link change test as > pciehp_ist(), and whichever ran first took the flags, so pciehp_ist() > could tear down a device that was only reset. (Sashiko) > - 4/5: Check presence with pciehp_card_present_or_link_active() in > both pciehp_isr() and the work item, as pciehp_ist() does, so that a > port with Presence Detect State hardwired to zero is not mistaken > for an empty slot. > - 4/5: Return early from the work item if pciehp_ist() has already > taken the pending events, and treat a read error of the presence > check as "not present". (Sashiko) > - 4/5: In pciehp_isr(), check presence before dropping the runtime PM > reference on the port's parent. In the work item, take a runtime PM > reference and check presence under reset_lock, since a slot reset > may make Presence Detect State and Link Active flap. > - 5/5: Build only with CONFIG_EDU_SRPOC, which depends on PCI; don't > claim the interrupt when the device reads all ones; clear bus > mastering on teardown. (Sashiko) > > Testing > > Reproducing this needs QEMU changes, since neither device_del nor the > attention button produces a true surprise removal. A branch with both > is here [3]: > > - a delayed-IRQ register on the edu device (BAR0 0x30, write N ms) > - a pcie_surprise_del monitor command that drops the device and > generates PDC=1, DLLSC=1, PDS=0 > > Both tests use: > > ./qemu-system-aarch64 -machine virt,gic-version=3 -cpu cortex-a57 \ > -m 512 -smp 2 -kernel Image -initrd initramfs.cpio.gz \ > -device pcie-root-port,id=rp1,chassis=1,slot=1 \ > -device edu,bus=rp1,id=edu0 -append "console=ttyAMA0 rdinit=/init" \ > -nographic -monitor unix:/tmp/qemu-mon.sock,server,nowait > > and need a guest kernel with CONFIG_EDU_SRPOC=y. > > Test 1 (Hang in remove() on a user thread, then surprise removal): > > guest# echo 1 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:01:00.0/remove & > host$ echo "pcie_surprise_del edu0" | socat - unix-connect:/tmp/qemu-mon.sock > > This is the case patch 1 solves on its own: pciehp's IRQ thread is > free and handles the removal. > > Test 2 (Hang in remove() on pciehp's IRQ thread, then surprise removal): > > guest# echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/slots/1/power & > host$ echo "pcie_surprise_del edu0" | socat - unix-connect:/tmp/qemu-mon.sock > > Without patch 4 the safe removal does not return until the delayed > interrupt fires 600 s later. With it, > pciehp_isr() schedules ctrl->disconnect_work, which marks the device > disconnected; the POC driver's disconnect work completes the wait and > remove() proceeds. > > Open questions > > - Is this a viable approach? > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/aHlZE18kPuHuDtTT@wunner.de/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260905183905.997833-1-abhinjoses@gmail.com/ > [3] https://gitlab.com/abhinkop/qemu/-/commits/suprise-removal > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260927165459.829900-1-abhinjoses@gmail.com/ > [5] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260927175203.928270-1-abhinjoses@gmail.com/ > > Assisted-by: LLM > > Abhin Parekadan Jose (4): > PCI: pciehp: Add pci_hp_wait_link_change() > PCI/DPC: Add pci_dpc_wait_recovery() > PCI: pciehp: Report surprise removal from pciehp_isr() > misc: Add edu_srpoc surprise removal POC driver > > Michael S. Tsirkin (1): > PCI: Report surprise removal event > > drivers/misc/Kconfig | 11 ++ > drivers/misc/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/misc/edu_srpoc.c | 172 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/pci/hotplug/pci_hotplug_core.c | 21 ++- > drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp.h | 1 + > drivers/pci/hotplug/pciehp_hpc.c | 67 ++++++++++ > drivers/pci/pci.h | 10 ++ > drivers/pci/pcie/dpc.c | 54 ++++++-- > drivers/pci/probe.c | 1 + > include/linux/pci.h | 57 ++++++++ > 10 files changed, 381 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 drivers/misc/edu_srpoc.c > > > base-commit: fd179f8a05be3ccae366b9b96e176b51fbe54aab > -- > 2.51.1 >