From: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
Cc: Xu Yang <xu.yang_2@nxp.com>,
kernel-team@android.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v1 2/3] driver core: fw_devlink: Improve detection of overlapping cycles
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 01:22:48 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240202092250.786276-3-saravanak@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240202092250.786276-1-saravanak@google.com>
fw_devlink can detect most overlapping/intersecting cycles. However it was
missing a few corner cases because of an incorrect optimization logic that
tries to avoid repeating cycle detection for devices that are already
marked as part of a cycle.
Here's an example provided by Xu Yang (edited for clarity):
usb
+-----+
tcpc | |
+-----+ | +--|
| |----------->|EP|
|--+ | | +--|
|EP|<-----------| |
|--+ | | B |
| | +-----+
| A | |
+-----+ |
^ +-----+ |
| | | |
+-----| C |<--+
| |
+-----+
usb-phy
Node A (tcpc) will be populated as device 1-0050.
Node B (usb) will be populated as device 38100000.usb.
Node C (usb-phy) will be populated as device 381f0040.usb-phy.
The description below uses the notation:
consumer --> supplier
child ==> parent
1. Node C is populated as device C. No cycles detected because cycle
detection is only run when a fwnode link is converted to a device link.
2. Node B is populated as device B. As we convert B --> C into a device
link we run cycle detection and find and mark the device link/fwnode
link cycle:
C--> A --> B.EP ==> B --> C
3. Node A is populated as device A. As we convert C --> A into a device
link, we see it's already part of a cycle (from step 2) and don't run
cycle detection. Thus we miss detecting the cycle:
A --> B.EP ==> B --> A.EP ==> A
Looking at it another way, A depends on B in one way:
A --> B.EP ==> B
But B depends on A in two ways and we only detect the first:
B --> C --> A
B --> A.EP ==> A
To detect both of these, we remove the incorrect optimization attempt in
step 3 and run cycle detection even if the fwnode link from which the
device link is being created has already been marked as part of a cycle.
Reported-by: Xu Yang <xu.yang_2@nxp.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/DU2PR04MB8822693748725F85DC0CB86C8C792@DU2PR04MB8822.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com/
Fixes: 3fb16866b51d ("driver core: fw_devlink: Make cycle detection more robust")
Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
---
drivers/base/core.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
index 52215c4c7209..e3d666461835 100644
--- a/drivers/base/core.c
+++ b/drivers/base/core.c
@@ -2060,9 +2060,14 @@ static int fw_devlink_create_devlink(struct device *con,
/*
* SYNC_STATE_ONLY device links don't block probing and supports cycles.
- * So cycle detection isn't necessary and shouldn't be done.
+ * So, one might expect that cycle detection isn't necessary for them.
+ * However, if the device link was marked as SYNC_STATE_ONLY because
+ * it's part of a cycle, then we still need to do cycle detection. This
+ * is because the consumer and supplier might be part of multiple cycles
+ * and we need to detect all those cycles.
*/
- if (!(flags & DL_FLAG_SYNC_STATE_ONLY)) {
+ if (!device_link_flag_is_sync_state_only(flags) ||
+ flags & DL_FLAG_CYCLE) {
device_links_write_lock();
if (__fw_devlink_relax_cycles(con, sup_handle)) {
__fwnode_link_cycle(link);
--
2.43.0.594.gd9cf4e227d-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-02 9:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-02 9:22 [PATCH v1 0/3] fw_devlink overlapping cycles fix Saravana Kannan
2024-02-02 9:22 ` [PATCH v1 1/3] driver core: Fix device_link_flag_is_sync_state_only() Saravana Kannan
2024-02-02 9:22 ` Saravana Kannan [this message]
2024-02-02 9:22 ` [PATCH v1 3/3] driver core: fw_devlink: Improve logs for cycle detection Saravana Kannan
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=20240202092250.786276-3-saravanak@google.com \
--to=saravanak@google.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=xu.yang_2@nxp.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