All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: "Nuno Sá" <noname.nuno@gmail.com>
Cc: Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>,
	 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	 Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	 Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@amd.com>, Max Zhen <max.zhen@amd.com>,
	 Sonal Santan <sonal.santan@amd.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xilinx.com>,
	 Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,  devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	Allan Nielsen <allan.nielsen@microchip.com>,
	 Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>,
	 Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@microchip.com>,
	Luca Ceresoli <luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com>,
	 Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@analog.com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	 stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] driver core: Introduce device_link_wait_removal()
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:01:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hGfqrczS1Si8Bu67vTSkTKO_gO7ftO2R7CQxGKGWsbAA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9cc3d11bc3e1bb89a1c725f865d0c8d1494111c5.camel@gmail.com>

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:13 PM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Just copy pasting my previous comments :)
>
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 11:52 +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...

AFAICS, the difference betwee flush_workqueue() and drain_workqueue()
is the handling of the case when a given work item can queue up itself
again.  This does not happen here.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-02-29 13:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-29 10:52 [PATCH v3 0/2] Synchronize DT overlay removal with devlink removals Herve Codina
2024-02-29 10:52 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] driver core: Introduce device_link_wait_removal() Herve Codina
2024-02-29 11:16   ` Nuno Sá
2024-02-29 12:57     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-02-29 13:01     ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2024-02-29 13:06       ` Nuno Sá
2024-02-29 13:10         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-02-29 14:00           ` Herve Codina
2024-02-29 10:52 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] of: overlay: Synchronize of_overlay_remove() with the devlink removals Herve Codina
2024-02-29 11:18   ` Nuno Sá
2024-03-04 15:22     ` Rob Herring
2024-03-04 15:36       ` Nuno Sá
2024-03-04 16:49       ` Herve Codina
2024-03-05  6:47         ` Saravana Kannan
2024-03-05  7:36           ` Nuno Sá
2024-03-05 10:27             ` Herve Codina
2024-03-05 10:47               ` Nuno Sá
2024-03-06  2:59                 ` Saravana Kannan
2024-03-04 15:02 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] Synchronize DT overlay removal with " Rob Herring
2024-03-05  6:17   ` Saravana Kannan
2024-03-05  7:17     ` Nuno Sá

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=CAJZ5v0hGfqrczS1Si8Bu67vTSkTKO_gO7ftO2R7CQxGKGWsbAA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
    --cc=allan.nielsen@microchip.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=frowand.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=herve.codina@bootlin.com \
    --cc=horatiu.vultur@microchip.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lizhi.hou@amd.com \
    --cc=luca.ceresoli@bootlin.com \
    --cc=max.zhen@amd.com \
    --cc=noname.nuno@gmail.com \
    --cc=nuno.sa@analog.com \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=sonal.santan@amd.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=steen.hegelund@microchip.com \
    --cc=stefano.stabellini@xilinx.com \
    --cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.