lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] driver core: Fix double failed probing with fw_devlink=on
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 1:43 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Saravana,
>
> (going over old patch I still have in my local tree)
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 6:08 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 12:59 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:08 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > > <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 7:27 PM Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 6:59 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 12:16 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > > > > > <geert+renesas@glider.be> wrote:
> > > > > > > With fw_devlink=permissive, devices are added to the deferred probe
> > > > > > > pending list if their driver's .probe() method returns -EPROBE_DEFER.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With fw_devlink=on, devices are added to the deferred probe pending list
> > > > > > > if they are determined to be a consumer,
> > > > >
> > > > > If they are determined to be a consumer or if they are determined to
> > > > > have a supplier that hasn't probed yet?
> > > >
> > > > When the supplier has probed:
> > > >
> > > > bus: 'platform': driver_probe_device: matched device
> > > > e6150000.clock-controller with driver renesas-cpg-mssr
> > > > bus: 'platform': really_probe: probing driver renesas-cpg-mssr
> > > > with device e6150000.clock-controller
> > > > PM: Added domain provider from /soc/clock-controller@e6150000
> > > > driver: 'renesas-cpg-mssr': driver_bound: bound to device
> > > > 'e6150000.clock-controller'
> > > > platform e6055800.gpio: Added to deferred list
> > > > [...]
> > > > platform e6020000.watchdog: Added to deferred list
> > > > [...]
> > > > platform fe000000.pcie: Added to deferred list
> > > >
> > > > > > > which happens before their
> > > > > > > driver's .probe() method is called. If the actual probe fails later
> > > > > > > (real failure, not -EPROBE_DEFER), the device will still be on the
> > > > > > > deferred probe pending list, and it will be probed again when deferred
> > > > > > > probing kicks in, which is futile.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fix this by explicitly removing the device from the deferred probe
> > > > > > > pending list in case of probe failures.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fixes: e590474768f1cc04 ("driver core: Set fw_devlink=on by default")
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good catch:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > The issue is real and needs to be fixed. But I'm confused how this can
> > > > > happen. We won't even enter really_probe() if the driver isn't ready.
> > > > > We also won't get to run the driver's .probe() if the suppliers aren't
> > > > > ready. So how does the device get added to the deferred probe list
> > > > > before the driver is ready? Is this due to device_links_driver_bound()
> > > > > on the supplier?
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you give a more detailed step by step on the case you are hitting?
> > > >
> > > > The device is added to the list due to device_links_driver_bound()
> > > > calling driver_deferred_probe_add() on all consumer devices.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the explanation. Maybe add more details like this to the
> > > commit text or in the code?
> > >
> > > For the code:
> > > Reviewed-by: Saravana Kanna <saravanak@google.com>
> >
> > Ugh... I just realized that I might have to give this a Nak because of
> > bad locking in deferred_probe_work_func(). The unlock/lock inside the
> > loop is a terrible hack. If we add this patch, we can end up modifying
> > a linked list while it's being traversed and cause a crash or busy
> > loop (you'll accidentally end up on an "empty list"). I ran into a
> > similar issue during one of my unrelated refactors.
>
> Turns out the issue I was seeing went away due to commit
> f2db85b64f0af141 ("driver core: Avoid pointless deferred probe
> attempts"), so there is no need to apply this patch.
>

Yay! That was the goal :) I'm assuming it wasn't ever applied.

-Saravana

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-07 19:46    [W:0.054 / U:0.744 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site