Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] driver core: Introduce device_link_wait_removal()

Nuno Sá
2024-02-29T09:40:02Z

Hi Herve,

Thanks for moving this forward... Couple of comment

On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 09:39 +0100, Herve Codina 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.
>
> Fixes: 80dd33cf72d1 ("drivers: base: Fix device link removal")
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> 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 d5f4e4aac09b..80d9430856a8 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 *device_link_wq;
>
>  /**
>   * __fwnode_link_add - Create a link between two fwnode_handles.
> @@ -532,12 +533,26 @@ 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(device_link_wq, &link->rm_work);
>  }
>
> +/**
> + * 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(device_link_wq);

I'm still not convinced we can have a recursive call into devlinks removal so I
do think flush_workqueue() is enough. I will defer to Saravana though...

> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_link_wait_removal);
> +
>  static struct class devlink_class = {
>   .name = "devlink",
>   .dev_groups = devlink_groups,
> @@ -4099,9 +4114,14 @@ 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;
> + device_link_wq = alloc_workqueue("device_link_wq", 0, 0);
> + if (!device_link_wq)
> + goto wq_err;

I still think this makes more sense in devlink_class_init() as this really
device link specific. Moreover, as I said to Saravana, we need to "convince"
Rafael about this as he (in my series) did not agreed with erroring out in case
we fail to allocate the queue.

Rafael?

- Nuno Sá