Re: Kernel panic while doing vfio-pci hot-plug/unplug test

[Xiang Zheng <zhengxiang9@huawei.com>]

On 2019/10/24 4:46, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> [+cc Thomas, Rafael, beginning of thread at
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/79827f2f-9b43-4411-1376-b9063b67aee3@huawei.com]
> 
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 09:38:51AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:15:40AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> I don't like being one of a handful of callers of __add_wait_queue(),
>>> so I like that solution from that point of view.
>>>
>>> The 7ea7e98fd8d0 ("PCI: Block on access to temporarily unavailable pci
>>> device") commit log suggests that using __add_wait_queue() is a
>>> significant optimization, but I don't know how important that is in
>>> practical terms.  Config accesses are never a performance path anyway,
>>> so I'd be inclined to use add_wait_queue() unless somebody complains.
>>
>> Wow, this has got pretty messy in the umpteen years since I last looked
>> at it.
>>
>> Some problems I see:
>>
>> 1. Commit df65c1bcd9b7b639177a5a15da1b8dc3bee4f5fa (tglx) says:
>>
>>     x86/PCI: Select CONFIG_PCI_LOCKLESS_CONFIG
>>     
>>     All x86 PCI configuration space accessors have either their own
>>     serialization or can operate completely lockless (ECAM).
>>     
>>     Disable the global lock in the generic PCI configuration space accessors.
>>
>> The concept behind this patch is broken.  We still need to lock out
>> config space accesses when devices are undergoing D-state transitions.
>> I would suggest that for the contention case that tglx is concerned about,
>> we should have a pci_bus_read_config_unlocked_##size set of functions
>> which can be used for devices we know never go into D states.
> 
> Host bridges that can't do config accesses atomically, e.g., they have
> something like the 0xcf8/0xcfc addr/data ports, need serialization.
> CONFIG_PCI_LOCKLESS_CONFIG removes the use of pci_lock for that, and I
> think that part makes sense regardless of whether devices can enter D
> states.
> 
> We *should* prevent config accesses during D-state transitions (per
> PCIe r5.0, sec 5.9), but I don't think pci_lock ever did that.
> pci_raw_set_power_state() contains delays, but that only prevents
> accesses from the caller, not from other threads or from userspace.
> I suppose we should also prevent accesses by other threads during
> transitions done by ACPI, e.g., _PS0, _PS1, _PS2, _PS3.  AFAICT we
> don't do any of that.
> 
> It looks like pci_lock currently:
> 
>   - Serializes all kernel config accesses system-wide in
>     pci_bus_read_config_##size() (unless CONFIG_PCI_LOCKLESS_CONFIG=y).
> 
>   - Serializes all userspace config accesses system-wide in
>     pci_user_read_config_##size() (this seems unnecessary when
>     CONFIG_PCI_LOCKLESS_CONFIG=y).
> 
>   - Serializes userspace config accesses with resets of the device via
>     the dev->block_cfg_access bit and waitqueue mechanism.
> 
>   - Serializes kernel and userspace config accesses with bus->ops
>     changes in pci_bus_set_ops() (except that we don't serialize
>     kernel config accesses if CONFIG_PCI_LOCKLESS_CONFIG=y, which is
>     probably a problem).  But pci_bus_set_ops() is hardly used and I'm
>     not sure it's worth keeping it.
> 
>> 2. Commit a2e27787f893621c5a6b865acf6b7766f8671328 (jan kiszka)
>>    exports pci_lock.  I think this is a mistake; at best there should be
>>    accessors for the pci_lock.  But I don't understand why it needs to
>>    exclude PCI config space changes throughout pci_check_and_set_intx_mask().
>>    Why can it not do:
>>
>> -	bus->ops->read(bus, dev->devfn, PCI_COMMAND, 4, &cmd_status_dword);
>> +	pci_read_config_dword(dev, PCI_COMMAND, &cmd_status_dword);
>>
>> 3. I don't understand why 511dd98ce8cf6dc4f8f2cb32a8af31ce9f4ba4a1
>>    changed pci_lock to be a raw spinlock.  The patch description
>>    essentially says "We need it for RT" which isn't terribly helpful.
>>
>> 4. Finally, getting back to the original problem report here, I wouldn't
>>    write this code this way today.  There's no reason not to use the
>>    regular add_wait_queue etc.  BUT!  Why are we using this custom locking
>>    mechanism?  It pretty much screams to me of an rwsem (reads/writes
>>    of config space take it for read; changes to config space accesses
>>    (disabling and changing of accessor methods) take it for write.
> 
> So maybe the immediate thing is to just convert to add_wait_queue()?

Hmmm... May I push a patch? :)

> 
> There's a lot we could clean up here, but I think it would take a fair
> bit of untangling before we actually solve this panic.
> 
> Bjorn
> 
> .
> 

-- 

Thanks,
Xiang