All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
	David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
	Jason Herne <jjherne@linux.ibm.com>,
	Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] driver core: Don't return EPROBE_DEFER to userspace during sysfs bind
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 19:43:01 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210614224301.GO1002214@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210614150846.4111871-5-hch@lst.de>

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 05:08:40PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> @@ -679,8 +666,6 @@ static int really_probe(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
>  		dev->pm_domain->dismiss(dev);
>  	pm_runtime_reinit(dev);
>  	dev_pm_set_driver_flags(dev, 0);
> -	if (probe_ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> -		driver_deferred_probe_add_trigger(dev, local_trigger_count);
>  done:

I like the new arrangement - however I'm looking at the ordering
relative to this:

>  	atomic_dec(&probe_count);
>  	wake_up_all(&probe_waitqueue);

And wondering if the idea is that driver_deferred_probe_add_trigger()
is supposed to be enclosed by the atomic, so that the
device_block_probing() / wait_for_device_probe() sequence is actually
a fence against queuing new work?

Which is suggesting that the other driver_deferred_probe_add_trigger()
at the top of really_probe is already ordered wrong?

Although, if that is the idea the wait_for_device_probe() doesn't look
entirely sequenced right..

It looks easy enough to fix by moving the probe_count up:

> +static int driver_probe_device(struct device_driver *drv, struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	int trigger_count = atomic_read(&deferred_trigger_count);
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = __driver_probe_device(drv, dev);
> +	if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER || ret == EPROBE_DEFER) {
> +		driver_deferred_probe_add(dev);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Did a trigger occur while probing? Need to re-trigger if yes
> +		 */
> +		if (trigger_count != atomic_read(&deferred_trigger_count) &&
> +		    !defer_all_probes)
> +			driver_deferred_probe_trigger();
> +	}

into here?

I didn't see a reason why it couldn't enclose the pm stuff too..

Jason

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Jason Herne <jjherne@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] driver core: Don't return EPROBE_DEFER to userspace during sysfs bind
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 19:43:01 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210614224301.GO1002214@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210614150846.4111871-5-hch@lst.de>

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 05:08:40PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> @@ -679,8 +666,6 @@ static int really_probe(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
>  		dev->pm_domain->dismiss(dev);
>  	pm_runtime_reinit(dev);
>  	dev_pm_set_driver_flags(dev, 0);
> -	if (probe_ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> -		driver_deferred_probe_add_trigger(dev, local_trigger_count);
>  done:

I like the new arrangement - however I'm looking at the ordering
relative to this:

>  	atomic_dec(&probe_count);
>  	wake_up_all(&probe_waitqueue);

And wondering if the idea is that driver_deferred_probe_add_trigger()
is supposed to be enclosed by the atomic, so that the
device_block_probing() / wait_for_device_probe() sequence is actually
a fence against queuing new work?

Which is suggesting that the other driver_deferred_probe_add_trigger()
at the top of really_probe is already ordered wrong?

Although, if that is the idea the wait_for_device_probe() doesn't look
entirely sequenced right..

It looks easy enough to fix by moving the probe_count up:

> +static int driver_probe_device(struct device_driver *drv, struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	int trigger_count = atomic_read(&deferred_trigger_count);
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = __driver_probe_device(drv, dev);
> +	if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER || ret == EPROBE_DEFER) {
> +		driver_deferred_probe_add(dev);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Did a trigger occur while probing? Need to re-trigger if yes
> +		 */
> +		if (trigger_count != atomic_read(&deferred_trigger_count) &&
> +		    !defer_all_probes)
> +			driver_deferred_probe_trigger();
> +	}

into here?

I didn't see a reason why it couldn't enclose the pm stuff too..

Jason

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@nvidia.com>,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Jason Herne <jjherne@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 04/10] driver core: Don't return EPROBE_DEFER to userspace during sysfs bind
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 19:43:01 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210614224301.GO1002214@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210614150846.4111871-5-hch@lst.de>

On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 05:08:40PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> @@ -679,8 +666,6 @@ static int really_probe(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv)
>  		dev->pm_domain->dismiss(dev);
>  	pm_runtime_reinit(dev);
>  	dev_pm_set_driver_flags(dev, 0);
> -	if (probe_ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> -		driver_deferred_probe_add_trigger(dev, local_trigger_count);
>  done:

I like the new arrangement - however I'm looking at the ordering
relative to this:

>  	atomic_dec(&probe_count);
>  	wake_up_all(&probe_waitqueue);

And wondering if the idea is that driver_deferred_probe_add_trigger()
is supposed to be enclosed by the atomic, so that the
device_block_probing() / wait_for_device_probe() sequence is actually
a fence against queuing new work?

Which is suggesting that the other driver_deferred_probe_add_trigger()
at the top of really_probe is already ordered wrong?

Although, if that is the idea the wait_for_device_probe() doesn't look
entirely sequenced right..

It looks easy enough to fix by moving the probe_count up:

> +static int driver_probe_device(struct device_driver *drv, struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	int trigger_count = atomic_read(&deferred_trigger_count);
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = __driver_probe_device(drv, dev);
> +	if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER || ret == EPROBE_DEFER) {
> +		driver_deferred_probe_add(dev);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Did a trigger occur while probing? Need to re-trigger if yes
> +		 */
> +		if (trigger_count != atomic_read(&deferred_trigger_count) &&
> +		    !defer_all_probes)
> +			driver_deferred_probe_trigger();
> +	}

into here?

I didn't see a reason why it couldn't enclose the pm stuff too..

Jason
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2021-06-14 22:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-14 15:08 Allow mdev drivers to directly create the vfio_device (v2 / alternative) Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08 ` [PATCH 01/10] driver core: Pull required checks into driver_probe_device() Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08   ` [Intel-gfx] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-15  5:16   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15  5:16     ` [Intel-gfx] " Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15  5:16     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15 10:27   ` Cornelia Huck
2021-06-15 10:27     ` [Intel-gfx] " Cornelia Huck
2021-06-15 10:27     ` Cornelia Huck
2021-06-14 15:08 ` [PATCH 02/10] driver core: Better distinguish probe errors in really_probe Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08   ` [Intel-gfx] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 18:47   ` Kirti Wankhede
2021-06-14 18:47     ` [Intel-gfx] " Kirti Wankhede
2021-06-14 18:47     ` Kirti Wankhede
2021-06-15  5:17   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15  5:17     ` [Intel-gfx] " Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15  5:17     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15  5:48     ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-15  5:48       ` [Intel-gfx] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08 ` [PATCH 03/10] driver core: Flow the return code from ->probe() through to sysfs bind Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08   ` [Intel-gfx] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-15  5:18   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15  5:18     ` [Intel-gfx] " Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15  5:18     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15 10:31   ` Cornelia Huck
2021-06-15 10:31     ` [Intel-gfx] " Cornelia Huck
2021-06-15 10:31     ` Cornelia Huck
2021-06-14 15:08 ` [PATCH 04/10] driver core: Don't return EPROBE_DEFER to userspace during " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08   ` [Intel-gfx] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 22:43   ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2021-06-14 22:43     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-14 22:43     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-14 15:08 ` [PATCH 05/10] driver core: Export device_driver_attach() Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08   ` [Intel-gfx] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-15  5:20   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15  5:20     ` [Intel-gfx] " Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15  5:20     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15 10:49   ` Cornelia Huck
2021-06-15 10:49     ` [Intel-gfx] " Cornelia Huck
2021-06-15 10:49     ` Cornelia Huck
2021-06-14 15:08 ` [PATCH 06/10] vfio/mdev: Remove CONFIG_VFIO_MDEV_DEVICE Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08   ` [Intel-gfx] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-15 10:50   ` Cornelia Huck
2021-06-15 10:50     ` [Intel-gfx] " Cornelia Huck
2021-06-15 10:50     ` Cornelia Huck
2021-06-14 15:08 ` [PATCH 07/10] vfio/mdev: Allow the mdev_parent_ops to specify the device driver to bind Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08   ` [Intel-gfx] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-15 10:54   ` Cornelia Huck
2021-06-15 10:54     ` [Intel-gfx] " Cornelia Huck
2021-06-15 10:54     ` Cornelia Huck
2021-06-14 15:08 ` [PATCH 08/10] vfio/mtty: Convert to use vfio_register_group_dev() Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08   ` [Intel-gfx] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08 ` [PATCH 09/10] vfio/mdpy: " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08   ` [Intel-gfx] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08 ` [PATCH 10/10] vfio/mbochs: " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-14 15:08   ` [Intel-gfx] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-15  0:20 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for series starting with [01/10] driver core: Pull required checks into driver_probe_device() Patchwork
2021-06-15  0:23 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2021-06-15  0:49 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2021-06-15  5:21 ` Allow mdev drivers to directly create the vfio_device (v2 / alternative) Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15  5:21   ` [Intel-gfx] " Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15  5:21   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-06-15  5:50   ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-15  5:50     ` [Intel-gfx] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-15 15:27     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-15 15:27       ` [Intel-gfx] " Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-15 15:27       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-15  9:37 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for series starting with [01/10] driver core: Pull required checks into driver_probe_device() Patchwork
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-06-17 14:22 Allow mdev drivers to directly create the vfio_device (v4) Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-17 14:22 ` [PATCH 04/10] driver core: Don't return EPROBE_DEFER to userspace during sysfs bind Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-15 13:35 Allow mdev drivers to directly create the vfio_device (v3) Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-15 13:35 ` [PATCH 04/10] driver core: Don't return EPROBE_DEFER to userspace during sysfs bind Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-15 14:03   ` Cornelia Huck
2021-06-15 14:03     ` Cornelia Huck
2021-06-15 19:36   ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-15 19:36     ` Alex Williamson
2021-06-08  0:55 [PATCH 00/10] Allow mdev drivers to directly create the vfio_device Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-08  0:55 ` [PATCH 04/10] driver core: Don't return EPROBE_DEFER to userspace during sysfs bind Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-08  6:14   ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-06-08  7:37   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210614224301.GO1002214@nvidia.com \
    --to=jgg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=airlied@linux.ie \
    --cc=akrowiak@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=jjherne@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kwankhede@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 04/10] driver core: Don'\''t return EPROBE_DEFER to userspace during sysfs bind' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.