From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>,
Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
Ben Widawsky <bwidawsk@kernel.org>, <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI/doe: Fix work struct declaration
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 11:13:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221115111327.00000899@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221115011943.1051039-1-ira.weiny@intel.com>
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 17:19:43 -0800
ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
>
> The callers of pci_doe_submit_task() allocate the pci_doe_task on the
> stack. This causes the work structure to be allocated on the stack
> without pci_doe_submit_task() knowing. Work item initialization needs
> to be done with either INIT_WORK_ONSTACK() or INIT_WORK() depending on
> how the work item is allocated.
>
> Jonathan suggested creating doe task allocation macros such as
> DECLARE_CDAT_DOE_TASK_ONSTACK().[1] The issue with this is the work
> function is not known to the callers and must be initialized correctly.
>
> A follow up suggestion was to have an internal 'pci_doe_work' item
> allocated by pci_doe_submit_task().[2] This requires an allocation which
> could restrict the context where tasks are used.
>
> Compromise with an intermediate step to initialize the task struct with
> a new call pci_doe_init_task() which must be called prior to submit
> task.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/20221014151045.24781-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com/T/#m88a7f50dcce52f30c8bf5c3dcc06fa9843b54a2d
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cxl/20221014151045.24781-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com/T/#m63c636c5135f304480370924f4d03c00357be667
>
> Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: Gregory Price <gregory.price@memverge.com>
> Reported-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> Suggested-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Looks like a good solution to me.
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> ---
> drivers/cxl/core/pci.c | 2 ++
> drivers/pci/doe.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> include/linux/pci-doe.h | 8 +++++---
> 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c b/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
> index 9240df53ed87..a19c1fa0e2f4 100644
> --- a/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/pci.c
> @@ -525,6 +525,7 @@ static int cxl_cdat_get_length(struct device *dev,
> DECLARE_CDAT_DOE_TASK(CDAT_DOE_REQ(0), t);
> int rc;
>
> + pci_doe_init_task(cdat_doe, &t.task, true);
> rc = pci_doe_submit_task(cdat_doe, &t.task);
> if (rc < 0) {
> dev_err(dev, "DOE submit failed: %d", rc);
> @@ -554,6 +555,7 @@ static int cxl_cdat_read_table(struct device *dev,
> u32 *entry;
> int rc;
>
> + pci_doe_init_task(cdat_doe, &t.task, true);
> rc = pci_doe_submit_task(cdat_doe, &t.task);
> if (rc < 0) {
> dev_err(dev, "DOE submit failed: %d", rc);
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/doe.c b/drivers/pci/doe.c
> index e402f05068a5..cabeae4ae955 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/doe.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/doe.c
> @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ static int pci_doe_discovery(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, u8 *index, u16 *vid,
> };
> int rc;
>
> + pci_doe_init_task(doe_mb, &task, true);
> rc = pci_doe_submit_task(doe_mb, &task);
> if (rc < 0)
> return rc;
> @@ -495,6 +496,14 @@ bool pci_doe_supports_prot(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, u16 vid, u8 type)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_doe_supports_prot);
>
> +void pci_doe_init_task(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, struct pci_doe_task *task,
> + bool onstack)
> +{
> + task->doe_mb = doe_mb;
> + __INIT_WORK(&task->work, doe_statemachine_work, onstack);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pci_doe_init_task);
> +
> /**
> * pci_doe_submit_task() - Submit a task to be processed by the state machine
> *
> @@ -517,6 +526,9 @@ int pci_doe_submit_task(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, struct pci_doe_task *task)
> if (!pci_doe_supports_prot(doe_mb, task->prot.vid, task->prot.type))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(task->work.func != doe_statemachine_work))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> /*
> * DOE requests must be a whole number of DW and the response needs to
> * be big enough for at least 1 DW
> @@ -528,8 +540,6 @@ int pci_doe_submit_task(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, struct pci_doe_task *task)
> if (test_bit(PCI_DOE_FLAG_DEAD, &doe_mb->flags))
> return -EIO;
>
> - task->doe_mb = doe_mb;
> - INIT_WORK(&task->work, doe_statemachine_work);
> queue_work(doe_mb->work_queue, &task->work);
> return 0;
> }
> diff --git a/include/linux/pci-doe.h b/include/linux/pci-doe.h
> index ed9b4df792b8..457fc0e53d64 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pci-doe.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pci-doe.h
> @@ -31,8 +31,8 @@ struct pci_doe_mb;
> * @rv: Return value. Length of received response or error (bytes)
> * @complete: Called when task is complete
> * @private: Private data for the consumer
> - * @work: Used internally by the mailbox
> - * @doe_mb: Used internally by the mailbox
> + * @work: Used internally by the mailbox [see pci_doe_init_task()]
> + * @doe_mb: Used internally by the mailbox [see pci_doe_init_task()]
> *
> * The payload sizes and rv are specified in bytes with the following
> * restrictions concerning the protocol.
> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ struct pci_doe_task {
> void (*complete)(struct pci_doe_task *task);
> void *private;
>
> - /* No need for the user to initialize these fields */
> + /* Call pci_doe_init_task() for these */
> struct work_struct work;
> struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb;
> };
> @@ -72,6 +72,8 @@ struct pci_doe_task {
>
> struct pci_doe_mb *pcim_doe_create_mb(struct pci_dev *pdev, u16 cap_offset);
> bool pci_doe_supports_prot(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, u16 vid, u8 type);
> +void pci_doe_init_task(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, struct pci_doe_task *task,
> + bool onstack);
> int pci_doe_submit_task(struct pci_doe_mb *doe_mb, struct pci_doe_task *task);
>
> #endif
>
> base-commit: 30a0b95b1335e12efef89dd78518ed3e4a71a763
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-15 11:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-15 1:19 [PATCH] PCI/doe: Fix work struct declaration ira.weiny
2022-11-15 11:13 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2022-11-15 19:44 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-11-15 20:18 ` Ira Weiny
2022-11-15 20:41 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-11-15 20:54 ` Ira Weiny
2022-11-15 22:12 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-11-16 10:09 ` Lukas Wunner
2022-11-16 18:20 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2022-11-16 20:57 ` Ira Weiny
2022-11-16 21:10 ` Dan Williams
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=20221115111327.00000899@Huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=alison.schofield@intel.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=bwidawsk@kernel.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=gregory.price@memverge.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.com \
/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