Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] driver core: shut down devices asynchronously

stuart hayes
2024-09-11T22:06:46Z

On 9/11/2024 12:51 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 11.09.24 02:14, stuart hayes wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/8/2024 8:36 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 22.08.24 22:28, Stuart Hayes wrote:
>>>> Add code to allow asynchronous shutdown of devices, ensuring that each
>>>> device is shut down before its parents & suppliers.
>>>>
>>>> Only devices with drivers that have async_shutdown_enable enabled
>>>> will be
>>>> shut down asynchronously.
>>>>
>>>> This can dramatically reduce system shutdown/reboot time on systems that
>>>> have multiple devices that take many seconds to shut down (like certain
>>>> NVMe drives). On one system tested, the shutdown time went from 11
>>>> minutes
>>>> without this patch to 55 seconds with the patch.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Stuart Hayes <stuart.w.hayes@gmail.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Jeffery <djeffery@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/base/base.h           |  4 +++
>>>>   drivers/base/core.c           | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>   include/linux/device/driver.h |  2 ++
>>>>   3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/base/base.h b/drivers/base/base.h
>>>> index 0b53593372d7..aa5a2bd3f2b8 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/base/base.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/base/base.h
>>>> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>>>>    * shared outside of the drivers/base/ directory.
>>>>    *
>>>>    */
>>>> +#include <linux/async.h>
>>>>   #include <linux/notifier.h>
>>>>     /**
>>>> @@ -97,6 +98,8 @@ struct driver_private {
>>>>    *    the device; typically because it depends on another driver
>>>> getting
>>>>    *    probed first.
>>>>    * @async_driver - pointer to device driver awaiting probe via
>>>> async_probe
>>>> + * @shutdown_after - used during device shutdown to ensure correct
>>>> shutdown
>>>> + *    ordering.
>>>>    * @device - pointer back to the struct device that this structure is
>>>>    * associated with.
>>>>    * @dead - This device is currently either in the process of or has
>>>> been
>>>> @@ -114,6 +117,7 @@ struct device_private {
>>>>       struct list_head deferred_probe;
>>>>       const struct device_driver *async_driver;
>>>>       char *deferred_probe_reason;
>>>> +    async_cookie_t shutdown_after;
>>>>       struct device *device;
>>>>       u8 dead:1;
>>>>   };
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
>>>> index 7e50daa65ca0..dd3652ea56fe 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
>>>> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
>>>>    */
>>>>     #include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/async.h>
>>>>   #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>>>>   #include <linux/device.h>
>>>>   #include <linux/err.h>
>>>> @@ -3531,6 +3532,7 @@ static int device_private_init(struct device *dev)
>>>>       klist_init(&dev->p->klist_children, klist_children_get,
>>>>              klist_children_put);
>>>>       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev->p->deferred_probe);
>>>> +    dev->p->shutdown_after = 0;
>>>>       return 0;
>>>>   }
>>>>   @@ -4781,6 +4783,8 @@ int device_change_owner(struct device *dev,
>>>> kuid_t kuid, kgid_t kgid)
>>>>   }
>>>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_change_owner);
>>>>   +static ASYNC_DOMAIN(sd_domain);
>>>> +
>>>>   static void shutdown_one_device(struct device *dev)
>>>>   {
>>>>       /* hold lock to avoid race with probe/release */
>>>> @@ -4816,12 +4820,34 @@ static void shutdown_one_device(struct device
>>>> *dev)
>>>>           put_device(dev->parent);
>>>>   }
>>>>   +/**
>>>> + * shutdown_one_device_async
>>>> + * @data: the pointer to the struct device to be shutdown
>>>> + * @cookie: not used
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Shuts down one device, after waiting for shutdown_after to complete.
>>>> + * shutdown_after should be set to the cookie of the last child or
>>>> consumer
>>>> + * of this device to be shutdown (if any), or to the cookie of the
>>>> previous
>>>> + * device to be shut down for devices that don't enable asynchronous
>>>> shutdown.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static void shutdown_one_device_async(void *data, async_cookie_t
>>>> cookie)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    struct device *dev = data;
>>>> +
>>>> +    async_synchronize_cookie_domain(dev->p->shutdown_after + 1,
>>>> &sd_domain);
>>>> +
>>>> +    shutdown_one_device(dev);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>   /**
>>>>    * device_shutdown - call ->shutdown() on each device to shutdown.
>>>>    */
>>>>   void device_shutdown(void)
>>>>   {
>>>>       struct device *dev, *parent;
>>>> +    async_cookie_t cookie = 0;
>>>> +    struct device_link *link;
>>>> +    int idx;
>>>>         wait_for_device_probe();
>>>>       device_block_probing();
>>>> @@ -4852,11 +4878,37 @@ void device_shutdown(void)
>>>>           list_del_init(&dev->kobj.entry);
>>>>           spin_unlock(&devices_kset->list_lock);
>>>>   -        shutdown_one_device(dev);
>>>> +
>>>> +        /*
>>>> +         * Set cookie for devices that will be shut down synchronously
>>>> +         */
>>>> +        if (!dev->driver || !dev->driver->async_shutdown_enable)
>>>> +            dev->p->shutdown_after = cookie;
>>>> +
>>>> +        get_device(dev);
>>>> +        get_device(parent);
>>>> +
>>>> +        cookie = async_schedule_domain(shutdown_one_device_async,
>>>> +                           dev, &sd_domain);
>>>> +        /*
>>>> +         * Ensure parent & suppliers wait for this device to shut down
>>>> +         */
>>>> +        if (parent) {
>>>> +            parent->p->shutdown_after = cookie;
>>>> +            put_device(parent);
>>>> +        }
>>>> +
>>>> +        idx = device_links_read_lock();
>>>> +        list_for_each_entry_rcu(link, &dev->links.suppliers, c_node,
>>>> +                device_links_read_lock_held())
>>>> +            link->supplier->p->shutdown_after = cookie;
>>>
>>> This will not fly if a supplier registered after its consumer. As we are
>>> walking the list backward, the supplier will now wait for something that
>>> is coming later during shutdown if the affected devices are still doing
>>> this synchronously (as almost all at this stage). This creates a
>>> circular dependency.
>>>
>>> Seems to explain the reboot hang that I'm seeing on an embedded target
>>> with a mailbox dev waiting for a remoteproc dev while the mailbox being
>>> after the remoteproc in the list (thus first on shutting down).
>>>
>>> This resolves the issue for me so far, but I don't think we are done yet:
>>>
>>> list_for_each_entry_rcu(link, &dev->links.suppliers, c_node,
>>>         device_links_read_lock_held()) {
>>>     if (link->supplier->driver &&
>>>         link->supplier->driver->async_shutdown_enable)
>>>         link->supplier->p->shutdown_after = cookie;
>>> }
>>>
>>> I wonder if overwriting the supplier's shutdown_after unconditionally is
>>> a good idea. A supplier may have multiple consumers - will we overwrite
>>> in the right order then? And why do we now need this ordering when we
>>> were so far shutting down suppliers while consumers were still up?
>>>
>>
>> The devices_kset list should already be in the right order for shutting
>> stuff down--i.e., parents and suppliers should be shutdown later as the
>> device_shutdown loop goes through the devices.
>>
>> With async shutdown this loop still goes the devices_kset list in the same
>> order it did before the patch, so my expectation was that any
>> parents/suppliers
>> would come later in the loop than any children/siblings, and it would
>> update
>> shutdown_after as it went to ensure that each device ended up with the
>> cookie
>> of the last child/consumer that it needed to wait for.
>>
>> However, I missed that the devices_kset list isn't always reordered when a
>> devlink is added and a consumer isn't dependent on the supplier (see
>> device_is_dependent()).  I have a patch would address that, and add a
>> sanity
>> check in case any devices get in the list in the wrong order somehow:
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
>> index b69b82da8837..52d64b419c01 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
>> @@ -4832,6 +4832,13 @@ static void shutdown_one_device_async(void *data,
>> async_cookie_t cookie)
>>  {
>>      struct device *dev = data;
>>
>> +    /*
>> +     * Sanity check to prevent shutdown hang in case a parent or supplier
>> +     * is in devices_kset list in the wrong order
>> +     */
>> +    if (dev->p->shutdown_after > cookie)
>> +        dev->p->shutdown_after = cookie - 1;
>> +
>>      async_synchronize_cookie_domain(dev->p->shutdown_after + 1,
>> &sd_domain);
>>
>>      shutdown_one_device(dev);
>> @@ -4898,8 +4905,11 @@ void device_shutdown(void)
>>
>>          idx = device_links_read_lock();
>>          list_for_each_entry_rcu(link, &dev->links.suppliers, c_node,
>> -                device_links_read_lock_held())
>> +                device_links_read_lock_held()) {
>> +            if (device_link_flag_is_sync_state_only(link->flags))
>> +                continue;
>>              link->supplier->p->shutdown_after = cookie;
>> +        }
>>          device_links_read_unlock(idx);
>>          put_device(dev);
>>
>>
>> I'll submit this shortly if nobody responds with any issues with this.
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>
> This sounds widely reasonable to me, and a quick check confirmed that it
> apparently resolves the issue I was seeing.
>
> I'm still wondering, though, if overwriting the parent's shutdown_after
> and only checking later on in shutdown_one_device_async is sufficient or
> if it wouldn't be safer to have a check when we write. The fact that
> there could be multiple children for a parent is worrying me.
>
> Jan
>

Having multiple children isn't a problem. All of the children will be in
the shutdown loop before the parent, and as each of them is seen, the
parent's shutdown_after will be updated with the cookie of the latest
child to be shut down. When the parent then does a synchronize_cookie to
wait for that last child, it won't continue until the earlier children have
also shutdown, because synchronize_cookie doesn't just wait for that one
cookie--it waits until the specified cookie is the lowest cookie in
progress, which means all the earlier children are also done shutting down.

>>
>>> Same overwrite question applies to setting shutdown_after in parents.
>>> Don't we rather need a list for shutdown_after, at least once everything
>>> is async?
>>>
>>> This needs to be thought through once more, I guess.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>> +        device_links_read_unlock(idx);
>>>> +        put_device(dev);
>>>>             spin_lock(&devices_kset->list_lock);
>>>>       }
>>>>       spin_unlock(&devices_kset->list_lock);
>>>> +    async_synchronize_full_domain(&sd_domain);
>>>>   }
>>>>     /*
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/device/driver.h
>>>> b/include/linux/device/driver.h
>>>> index 1fc8b68786de..2b6127faaa25 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/device/driver.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/device/driver.h
>>>> @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ enum probe_type {
>>>>    * @mod_name:    Used for built-in modules.
>>>>    * @suppress_bind_attrs: Disables bind/unbind via sysfs.
>>>>    * @probe_type:    Type of the probe (synchronous or asynchronous)
>>>> to use.
>>>> + * @async_shutdown_enable: Enables devices to be shutdown
>>>> asynchronously.
>>>>    * @of_match_table: The open firmware table.
>>>>    * @acpi_match_table: The ACPI match table.
>>>>    * @probe:    Called to query the existence of a specific device,
>>>> @@ -102,6 +103,7 @@ struct device_driver {
>>>>         bool suppress_bind_attrs;    /* disables bind/unbind via
>>>> sysfs */
>>>>       enum probe_type probe_type;
>>>> +    bool async_shutdown_enable;
>>>>         const struct of_device_id    *of_match_table;
>>>>       const struct acpi_device_id    *acpi_match_table;
>>>
>