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=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable 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 A6949C43441 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:36:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDAE620883 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:36:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Tozr26f2" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CDAE620883 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42rylR3m5hzF3bh for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 22:36:03 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Tozr26f2"; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=198.145.29.99; helo=mail.kernel.org; envelope-from=srs0=8jp/=nu=linuxfoundation.org=gregkh@kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Tozr26f2"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42ryh12wcYzF3Zj for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 22:33:01 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost (71-6-98-120.static-ip.telepacific.net [71.6.98.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A84C520825; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:32:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1541763178; bh=0DUF34A95pkCj93K68jf3LRXiQrTfL8ZmLN1ZhB5A30=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Tozr26f2KCK6bZF3T7jOTCNnJj3hvHyXvM6dbBm2a+JTH/ehrOGD+zkg5kg8nVp7w US8MDdsB032ur6avIu0eUoXA73d85ixGax85t3gYlhEEtZP7V8hxbdAk2lugcmLN7q SBaoCeqTJbteJ1e4tj9KOAH7jHGwNThWie8o1Yeg= Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 03:32:57 -0800 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Lukas Wunner Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PCI/MSI: Don't touch MSI bits when the PCI device is disconnected Message-ID: <20181109113257.GB29785@kroah.com> References: <20180918221501.13112-1-mr.nuke.me@gmail.com> <20181107234257.GC41183@google.com> <20181108200855.GE41183@google.com> <20181108220117.GA11466@kroah.com> <20181109072953.ox7qfpnibb7drmf6@wunner.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181109072953.ox7qfpnibb7drmf6@wunner.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: alex_gagniuc@dellteam.com, Sam Bobroff , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, shyam_iyer@dell.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keith.busch@intel.com, Bjorn Helgaas , Alexandru Gagniuc , Oliver O'Halloran , austin_bolen@dell.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Jonathan Derrick Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 08:29:53AM +0100, Lukas Wunner wrote: > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 02:01:17PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 02:09:17PM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > > I'm having second thoughts about this. One thing I'm uncomfortable > > > with is that sprinkling pci_dev_is_disconnected() around feels ad hoc > > > > I think my stance always has been that this call is not good at all > > because once you call it you never really know if it is still true as > > the device could have been removed right afterward. > > > > So almost any code that relies on it is broken, there is no locking and > > it can and will race and you will loose. > > Hm, to be honest if that's your impression I think you must have missed a > large portion of the discussion we've been having over the past 2 years. > > Please consider reading this LWN article, particularly the "Surprise > removal" section, to get up to speed: > > https://lwn.net/Articles/767885/ > > You seem to be assuming that all we care about is the *return value* of > an mmio read. However a transaction to a surprise removed device has > side effects beyond returning all ones, such as a Completion Timeout > which, with thousands of transactions in flight, added up to many seconds > to handle removal of an NVMe array and occasionally caused MCEs. Again, I still claim this is broken hardware/firmware :) > It is not an option to just blindly carry out device accesses even though > it is known the device is gone, Completion Timeouts be damned. I don't disagree with you at all, and your other email is great with summarizing the issues here. What I do object to is somehow relying on that function call as knowing that the device really is present or not. It's a good hint, yes, but driver authors still have to be able to handle the bad data coming back from when the call races with the device being removed. > However there is more to it than just Completion Timeouts, this is all > detailed in the LWN article. And that's a great article and your work here is much appreciated. I think we are in violent agreement :) thanks, greg k-h