From: Sam Bobroff <sbobroff@linux.ibm.com>
To: "Oliver O'Halloran" <oohall@gmail.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] powerpc/eeh: Remove workaround from eeh_add_device_late()
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 16:44:25 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200415064423.GA22089@osmium> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOSf1CHA+ZzWpLtuPrvkOvWO13Dikv86UjiBdppyG4GrexGSpA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2690 bytes --]
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 04:53:36PM +1000, Oliver O'Halloran wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 4:22 PM Sam Bobroff <sbobroff@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 05:08:32PM +1100, Oliver O'Halloran wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2020-03-30 at 15:56 +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
> > > > When EEH device state was released asynchronously by the device
> > > > release handler, it was possible for an outstanding reference to
> > > > prevent it's release and it was necessary to work around that if a
> > > > device was re-discovered at the same PCI location.
> > >
> > > I think this is a bit misleading. The main situation where you'll hit
> > > this hack is when recovering a device with a driver that doesn't
> > > implement the error handling callbacks. In that case the device is
> > > removed, reset, then re-probed by the PCI core, but we assume it's the
> > > same physical device so the eeh_device state remains active.
> > >
> > > If you actually changed the underlying device I suspect something bad
> > > would happen.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand. Isn't the case you're talking about caught by
> > the earlier check (just above the patch)?
> >
> > if (edev->pdev == dev) {
> > eeh_edev_dbg(edev, "Device already referenced!\n");
> > return;
> > }
>
> No, in the case I'm talking about the pci_dev is torn down and
> freed(). After the PE is reset we re-probe the device and create a new
> pci_dev. If the release of the old pci_dev is delayed we need the
> hack this patch is removing.
Oh, yes, that is the case I was intending to change here. But I must be
missing something, isn't it also the case that's changed by patch 2/4?
What I intended was, after patch 2, eeh_remove_device() is called from
the bus notifier so it happens imediately when recovery calls
pci_stop_and_remove_bus_device(). Once it returns, edev->pdev has
already been set to NULL by eeh_remove_device() so this case can't be
hit anymore, and we should clean it up (this patch).
(There is a slight difference in the way EEH_PE_KEEP is handled between
the code removed here and the body of eeh_remove_device(), but checking
and explaining that is already on my list for v2.)
(I did test recovery on an unaware device and didn't hit the
WARN_ON_ONCE().)
> The check above should probably be a WARN_ON() since we should never
> be re-running the EEH probe on the same device. I think there is a
> case where that can happen, but I don't remember the details.
Yeah, I also certainly see the "Device already referenced!" message
while debugging, and it would be good to track down.
> Oliver
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-15 6:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-30 4:56 [PATCH 0/4] powerpc/eeh: Release EEH device state synchronously Sam Bobroff
2020-03-30 4:56 ` [PATCH 1/4] powerpc/eeh: fix pseries_eeh_configure_bridge() Sam Bobroff
2020-04-03 4:19 ` Oliver O'Halloran
2020-03-30 4:56 ` [PATCH 2/4] powerpc/eeh: Release EEH device state synchronously Sam Bobroff
2020-04-03 4:51 ` Oliver O'Halloran
2020-04-08 6:15 ` Sam Bobroff
2020-03-30 4:56 ` [PATCH 3/4] powerpc/eeh: Remove workaround from eeh_add_device_late() Sam Bobroff
2020-04-03 6:08 ` Oliver O'Halloran
2020-04-08 6:21 ` Sam Bobroff
2020-04-08 6:53 ` Oliver O'Halloran
2020-04-15 6:44 ` Sam Bobroff [this message]
2020-03-30 4:56 ` [PATCH 4/4] powerpc/eeh: Clean up edev cleanup for VFs Sam Bobroff
2020-04-03 5:45 ` Oliver O'Halloran
2020-04-08 6:33 ` Sam Bobroff
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=20200415064423.GA22089@osmium \
--to=sbobroff@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=oohall@gmail.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 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).