lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2] PCI: AER: fix deadlock in do_recovery
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 01:42:09PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 11:05:12PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > [+cc Alex, Gavin, Wei]
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:49:38PM -0700, Govindarajulu Varadarajan wrote:
>> >> CPU0 CPU1
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> __driver_attach()
>> >> device_lock(&dev->mutex) <--- device mutex lock here
>> >> driver_probe_device()
>> >> pci_enable_sriov()
>> >> pci_iov_add_virtfn()
>> >> pci_device_add()
>> >> aer_isr() <--- pci aer error
>> >> do_recovery()
>> >> broadcast_error_message()
>> >> pci_walk_bus()
>> >> down_read(&pci_bus_sem) <--- rd sem
>> >> down_write(&pci_bus_sem) <-- stuck on wr sem
>> >> report_error_detected()
>> >> device_lock(&dev->mutex)<--- DEAD LOCK
>> >>
>> >> This can also happen when aer error occurs while pci_dev->sriov_config() is
>> >> called.
>> >>
>> >> This patch does a pci_bus_walk and adds all the devices to a list. After
>> >> unlocking (up_read) &pci_bus_sem, we go through the list and call
>> >> err_handler of the devices with devic_lock() held. This way, we dont try
>> >> to hold both locks at same time.
>> >
>> > I feel like we're working too hard to come up with an ad hoc solution
>> > for this lock ordering problem: the __driver_attach() path acquires
>> > the device lock, then the pci_bus_sem; the AER path acquires
>> > pci_bus_sem, then the device lock.
>> >
>> > To me, the pci_bus_sem, then device lock order seems natural. The
>> > pci_bus_sem protects all the bus device lists, so it makes sense to
>> > hold it while iterating over those lists. And if we're operating on
>> > one of those devices while we're iterating, it makes sense to acquire
>> > the device lock.
>> >
>> > The pci_enable_sriov() path is the one that feels strange to me.
>> > We're in a driver probe method, and, surprise!, brand-new devices show
>> > up and we basically ask the PCI core to enumerate them synchronously
>> > while still in the probe method.
>> >
>> > Is there some reason this enumeration has to be done synchronously?
>> > I wonder if we can get that piece out of the driver probe path, e.g.,
>> > by queuing up the pci_iov_add_virtfn() part to be done later, in a
>> > path where we're not holding a device lock?
>> >
>>
>> Hi, Bjorn,
>>
>> First let me catch up with the thread.
>>
>> We have two locking sequence:
>> 1. pci_bus_sem -> device lock, which is natural
>> 2. device lock -> pci_bus_sem, which is not
>
>Right. Or at least, that's my assertion :) I could be convinced
>otherwise.
>
>> pci_enable_sriov() sits in class #2 and your suggestion is to move the
>> pci_iov_add_virtfn() to some queue which will avoid case #2.
>>
>> If we want to implement your suggestion, one thing unclear to me is
>> how would we handle the error path? Add a notification for the
>> failure? This would be easy for the core kernel, while some big change
>> for those drivers.
>
>My suggestion was for discussion. It's entirely possible it will turn
>out not to be feasible.
>
>We're only talking about errors from pci_iov_add_virtfn() here. We
>can still return all the other existing errors from sriov_enable(),
>which the driver can see. These errors seem more directly related to
>the PF itself.
>
>The pci_iov_add_virtfn() errors are enumeration-type errors (failure
>to add a bus, failure to read config space of a VF, etc.) These
>feel more like PCI core issues to me. The driver isn't going to be
>able to do anything about them.
>

Ideally, PF and VF has their own probe function and they don't interfere each
other. From this point of view, I agree these failures are not handled by
drivers.

While in the real implementation, I am not 100% for sure the PF driver
operates without the knowledge of enabled VFs.

>The end result would likely be that a VF is enabled in the hardware
>but not added as a PCI device. The same errors can occur during
>boot-time or hotplug-time enumeration of non-SR-IOV devices.
>
>Are these sort of errors important to the PF driver? If the PF driver
>can get along without them, maybe we can use the same strategy as when
>we enumerate all other devices, i.e., log something in dmesg and
>continue on without the device.
>

Besides the functionality, I have another concern on the behavior change.

Current behavior is the VFs will be enabled ALL or NONE, which we will add a
third condition PARTIAL.

For example, the sys admin wants to enable 5 VFs while leads to 3 enabled at
last.

Hmm, not a big deal, while need to inform the users.

>Bjorn

--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-06 03:14    [W:0.054 / U:4.496 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site