Re: [PATCH 1/2] driver core: Introduce device_link_wait_removal()

Herve Codina
2024-02-23T08:46:32Z

Hi,

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 17:08:28 -0800
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 10:56 PM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2024-02-20 at 16:31 -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 9:41 AM Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The commit 80dd33cf72d1 ("drivers: base: Fix device link removal")
> > > > introduces a workqueue to release the consumer and supplier devices used
> > > > in the devlink.
> > > > In the job queued, devices are release and in turn, when all the
> > > > references to these devices are dropped, the release function of the
> > > > device itself is called.
> > > >
> > > > Nothing is present to provide some synchronisation with this workqueue
> > > > in order to ensure that all ongoing releasing operations are done and
> > > > so, some other operations can be started safely.
> > > >
> > > > For instance, in the following sequence:
> > > > 1) of_platform_depopulate()
> > > > 2) of_overlay_remove()
> > > >
> > > > During the step 1, devices are released and related devlinks are removed
> > > > (jobs pushed in the workqueue).
> > > > During the step 2, OF nodes are destroyed but, without any
> > > > synchronisation with devlink removal jobs, of_overlay_remove() can raise
> > > > warnings related to missing of_node_put():
> > > > ERROR: memory leak, expected refcount 1 instead of 2
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, the missing of_node_put() call is going to be done, too late,
> > > > from the workqueue job execution.
> > > >
> > > > Introduce device_link_wait_removal() to offer a way to synchronize
> > > > operations waiting for the end of devlink removals (i.e. end of
> > > > workqueue jobs).
> > > > Also, as a flushing operation is done on the workqueue, the workqueue
> > > > used is moved from a system-wide workqueue to a local one.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the bug report and fix. Sorry again about the delay in
> > > reviewing the changes.
> > >
> > > Please add Fixes tag for 80dd33cf72d1.
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/base/core.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > > include/linux/device.h | 1 +
> > > > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> > > > index ac026187ac6a..2e102a77758c 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> > > > @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ static bool fw_devlink_is_permissive(void);
> > > > static void __fw_devlink_link_to_consumers(struct device *dev);
> > > > static bool fw_devlink_drv_reg_done;
> > > > static bool fw_devlink_best_effort;
> > > > +static struct workqueue_struct *fw_devlink_wq;
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > * __fwnode_link_add - Create a link between two fwnode_handles.
> > > > @@ -530,12 +531,26 @@ static void devlink_dev_release(struct device *dev)
> > > > /*
> > > > * It may take a while to complete this work because of the SRCU
> > > > * synchronization in device_link_release_fn() and if the consumer or
> > > > - * supplier devices get deleted when it runs, so put it into the "long"
> > > > - * workqueue.
> > > > + * supplier devices get deleted when it runs, so put it into the
> > > > + * dedicated workqueue.
> > > > */
> > > > - queue_work(system_long_wq, &link->rm_work);
> > > > + queue_work(fw_devlink_wq, &link->rm_work);
> > >
> > > This has nothing to do with fw_devlink. fw_devlink is just triggering
> > > the issue in device links. You can hit this bug without fw_devlink too.
> > > So call this device_link_wq since it's consistent with device_link_* APIs.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure if I got this right in my series. I do call devlink_release_queue() to
> > my queue. But on the Overlay side I use fwnode_links_flush_queue() because it looked
> > more sensible from an OF point of view. And including (in OF code) linux/fwnode.h
> > instead linux/device.h makes more sense to me.
> >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * device_link_wait_removal - Wait for ongoing devlink removal jobs to terminate
> > > > + */
> > > > +void device_link_wait_removal(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * devlink removal jobs are queued in the dedicated work queue.
> > > > + * To be sure that all removal jobs are terminated, ensure that any
> > > > + * scheduled work has run to completion.
> > > > + */
> > > > + drain_workqueue(fw_devlink_wq);
> > >
> > > Is there a reason this needs to be drain_workqueu() instead of
> > > flush_workqueue(). Drain is a stronger guarantee than we need in this
> > > case. All we are trying to make sure is that all the device link
> > > remove work queued so far have completed.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, I'm also using flush_workqueue().
> >
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_link_wait_removal);
> > > > +
> > > > static struct class devlink_class = {
> > > > .name = "devlink",
> > > > .dev_groups = devlink_groups,
> > > > @@ -4085,9 +4100,14 @@ int __init devices_init(void)
> > > > sysfs_dev_char_kobj = kobject_create_and_add("char", dev_kobj);
> > > > if (!sysfs_dev_char_kobj)
> > > > goto char_kobj_err;
> > > > + fw_devlink_wq = alloc_workqueue("fw_devlink_wq", 0, 0);
> > > > + if (!fw_devlink_wq)
> > >
> > > Fix the name appropriately here too please.
> >
> > Hi Saravana,
> >
> > Oh, was not aware of this series... Please look at my first patch. It already has a
> > review tag by Rafael. I think the creation of the queue makes more sense to be done
> > in devlink_class_init(). Moreover, Rafael complained in my first version that
> > erroring out because we failed to create the queue is too harsh since devlinks can
> > still work.
>
> I think Rafael can be convinced on this one. Firstly, if we fail to
> allocate so early, we have bigger problems.
>
> > So, what we do is to schedule the work if we have a queue or too call
> > device_link_release_fn() synchronously if we don't have the queue (note that failing
> > to allocate the queue is very unlikely anyways).
>
> device links don't really work when you synchronously need to delete a
> link since it always uses SRCUs (it used to have a #ifndef CONFIG_SRCU
> locking). That's like saying a code still works when it doesn't hit a
> deadlock condition.
>
> Let's stick with Herve's patch series since he send it first and it
> has fewer things that need to be fixed. If he ignores this thread for
> too long, you can send a revision of yours again and we can accept
> that.

I don't ignore the thread :)

Hope I could take some time in the near future to send a v2 of this
series.

Hervé