From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Deadlock in spi_add_device() -- device core problem
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 08:52:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YWaCMwt+2QVRfCKY@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211012193005.lxqzbsdeh4k7nxe2@pengutronix.de>
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 09:30:05PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 02:31:57PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 06:52:14PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 06:19:46PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 06:05:24PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> >
> > > > Drivers for a bus bind to the bus, they should not be creating new
> > > > devices for that same bus, as that does not seem correct.
> >
> > > That's not the culprit here. We have a spi-device (spi-mux) that is a
> > > bus device on the SoC's bus and a bus master for it's own bus. And
> > > spi_add_device for the spi-mux device triggers the probe function for
> > > the spi-mux driver which creates a new bus controller which triggers
> > > spi_add_device() for the devices on the inner bus.
> >
> > I think we need to be arranging for spi_add_lock to be per bus
> > rather than global - putting it into the controller ought to do
> > the trick.
>
> Yeah, that's what I consider the second best option that I already
> mentioned in the initial mail of this thread.
>
> @Greg: Would you expect that it should be possible (and benificial) to
> rework the code to not hold a lock at all during device_add()?
rework the driver core or the spi code?
/me is confused...
>
> This would then need something like:
>
> lock() # either per controller or global
> if bus already has a device for the same chipselect:
> error out;
> register chipselect as busy
> unlock();
>
> ret = device_add(...)
>
> if ret:
> lock()
> unregister chipselect
> unlock()
>
> Is this worth the effort?
Watch out that you do not have probe() calls racing each other, we have
guaranteed that they will be called serially in the past.
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-13 6:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-07 16:05 Deadlock in spi_add_device() -- device core problem Uwe Kleine-König
2021-10-07 16:19 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2021-10-07 16:52 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-10-08 13:31 ` Mark Brown
2021-10-12 19:30 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-10-13 6:52 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2021-10-13 7:33 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2021-10-07 17:23 ` Lukas Wunner
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=YWaCMwt+2QVRfCKY@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=jarkko.nikula@intel.com \
--cc=linux-spi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukas@wunner.de \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).