From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
To: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@arm.com>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>,
artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com, Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Ferry Toth <fntoth@gmail.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
kernel-team@android.com, nd <nd@arm.com>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] driver core: Break infinite loop when deferred probe can't be satisfied
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 14:13:30 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfQvT1VSXhNtfLMLzwYcN+4g=jVRkBHc=ZS0180BRzAJg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200608091712.GA28093@pengutronix.de>
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:20 PM Marco Felsch <m.felsch@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> On 20-03-26 18:31, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:01:22PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > On 25/03/2020 12:51, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 08:29:01PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 5:38 AM Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Consider the following scenario.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The main driver of USB OTG controller (dwc3-pci), which has the following
> > > > > > functional dependencies on certain platform:
> > > > > > - ULPI (tusb1210)
> > > > > > - extcon (tested with extcon-intel-mrfld)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Note, that first driver, tusb1210, is available at the moment of
> > > > > > dwc3-pci probing, while extcon-intel-mrfld is built as a module and
> > > > > > won't appear till user space does something about it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is depicted by kernel configuration excerpt:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CONFIG_PHY_TUSB1210=y
> > > > > > CONFIG_USB_DWC3=y
> > > > > > CONFIG_USB_DWC3_ULPI=y
> > > > > > CONFIG_USB_DWC3_DUAL_ROLE=y
> > > > > > CONFIG_USB_DWC3_PCI=y
> > > > > > CONFIG_EXTCON_INTEL_MRFLD=m
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the Buildroot environment the modules are probed by alphabetical ordering
> > > > > > of their modaliases. The latter comes to the case when USB OTG driver will be
> > > > > > probed first followed by extcon one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, if the platform anticipates extcon device to be appeared, in the above case
> > > > > > we will get deferred probe of USB OTG, because of ordering.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since current implementation, done by the commit 58b116bce136 ("drivercore:
> > > > > > deferral race condition fix") counts the amount of triggered deferred probe,
> > > > > > we never advance the situation -- the change makes it to be an infinite loop.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Andy,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm trying to understand this sequence of steps. Sorry if the questions
> > > > > are stupid -- I'm not very familiar with USB/PCI stuff.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for looking into this. My answer below.
> > > >
> > > > As a first thing I would like to tell that there is another example of bad
> > > > behaviour of deferred probe with no relation to USB. The proposed change also
> > > > fixes that one (however, less possible to find in real life).
> > > >
> > > > > > ---8<---8<---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ 22.187127] driver_deferred_probe_trigger <<< 1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...here is the late initcall triggers deferred probe...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ 22.191725] platform dwc3.0.auto: deferred_probe_work_func in deferred list
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...dwc3.0.auto is the only device in the deferred list...
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, dwc3.0.auto is the only unprobed device at this point?
> > > >
> > > > Correct.
> > > >
> > > > > > [ 22.198727] platform dwc3.0.auto: deferred_probe_work_func 1 <<< counter 1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...the counter before mutex is unlocked is kept the same...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ 22.205663] platform dwc3.0.auto: Retrying from deferred list
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...mutes has been unlocked, we try to re-probe the driver...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ 22.211487] bus: 'platform': driver_probe_device: matched device dwc3.0.auto with driver dwc3
> > > > > > [ 22.220060] bus: 'platform': really_probe: probing driver dwc3 with device dwc3.0.auto
> > > > > > [ 22.238735] bus: 'ulpi': driver_probe_device: matched device dwc3.0.auto.ulpi with driver tusb1210
> > > > > > [ 22.247743] bus: 'ulpi': really_probe: probing driver tusb1210 with device dwc3.0.auto.ulpi
> > > > > > [ 22.256292] driver: 'tusb1210': driver_bound: bound to device 'dwc3.0.auto.ulpi'
> > > > > > [ 22.263723] driver_deferred_probe_trigger <<< 2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...the dwc3.0.auto probes ULPI, we got successful bound and bumped counter...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ 22.268304] bus: 'ulpi': really_probe: bound device dwc3.0.auto.ulpi to driver tusb1210
> > > > >
> > > > > So where did this dwc3.0.auto.ulpi come from?
> > > >
> > > > > Looks like the device is created by dwc3_probe() through this call flow:
> > > > > dwc3_probe() -> dwc3_core_init() -> dwc3_core_ulpi_init() ->
> > > > > dwc3_ulpi_init() -> ulpi_register_interface() -> ulpi_register()
> > > >
> > > > Correct.
> > > >
> > > > > > [ 22.276697] platform dwc3.0.auto: Driver dwc3 requests probe deferral
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you please point me to which code patch actually caused the probe
> > > > > deferral?
> > > >
> > > > Sure, it's in drd.c.
> > > >
> > > > if (device_property_read_string(dev, "linux,extcon-name", &name) == 0) {
> > > > edev = extcon_get_extcon_dev(name);
> > > > if (!edev)
> > > > return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> > > > return edev;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > > > ...but extcon driver is still missing...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ 22.283174] platform dwc3.0.auto: Added to deferred list
> > > > > > [ 22.288513] platform dwc3.0.auto: driver_deferred_probe_add_trigger local counter: 1 new counter 2
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not fully aware of all the USB implications, but if extcon is
> > > > > needed, why can't that check be done before we add and probe the ulpi
> > > > > device? That'll avoid this whole "fake" probing and avoid the counter
> > > > > increase. And avoid the need for this patch that's touching the code
> > > > > code that's already a bit delicate.
> > > >
> > > > > Also, with my limited experience with all the possible drivers in the
> > > > > kernel, it's weird that the ulpi device is added and probed before we
> > > > > make sure the parent device (dwc3.0.auto) can actually probe
> > > > > successfully.
> > > >
> > > > As I said above the deferred probe trigger has flaw on its own.
> > > > Even if we fix for USB case, there is (and probably will be) others.
> > >
> > > Right here is the driver design bug. A driver's probe() hook should *not*
> > > return -EPROBE_DEFER after already creating child devices which may have
> > > already been probed.
> >
> > Any documentation statement for this requirement?
> >
> > By the way, I may imagine other mechanisms that probe the driver on other CPU
> > at the same time (let's consider parallel modprobes). The current code has a
> > flaw with that.
>
> Hi,
>
> sorry for picking this up again but I stumbled above the same issue
> within the driver imx/drm driver which is using the component framework.
> I end up in a infinity boot loop if I enabled the HDMI (which is the
> DesignWare bridge device) and the LVDS support and the LVDS bind return
> with EPROBE_DEFER. There are no words within the component framework docs
> which says that this is forbidden. Of course we can work-around the
> driver-core framework but IMHO this shouldn't be the way to go. I do not
> say that we should revert the commit introducing the regression but we
> should address this not only by extending the docs since the most
> drm-drivers are using the component framework and can end up in the same
> situation.
>
> > > It can be solved by refactoring the driver probe routine. If a resource is
> > > required to be present, then check that it is available early; before
> > > registering child devices.
> >
> > We fix one and leave others.
>
> E.g. the imx-drm and the sunxi driver...
Just out of curiosity, does my patch fix an issue for you?
> > > The proposed solution to modify driver core is fragile and susceptible to
> > > side effects from other probe paths. I don't think it is the right approach.
> >
> > Have you tested it on your case? Does it fix the issue?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-08 11:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-24 17:57 [PATCH v3] driver core: Break infinite loop when deferred probe can't be satisfied Andy Shevchenko
2020-03-25 3:29 ` Saravana Kannan
2020-03-25 12:51 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-03-25 22:08 ` Saravana Kannan
2020-03-26 8:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-03-26 9:45 ` Peter Ujfalusi
2020-03-26 12:03 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-03-26 13:45 ` Grant Likely
2020-03-26 14:23 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-03-26 11:57 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-03-26 13:48 ` Grant Likely
2020-03-26 18:45 ` Saravana Kannan
2020-03-26 11:54 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-03-26 14:46 ` Grant Likely
2020-03-26 19:55 ` Saravana Kannan
2020-03-26 15:01 ` Grant Likely
2020-03-26 15:20 ` Grant Likely
2020-03-26 16:31 ` Andy Shevchenko
2020-03-26 16:39 ` Greg KH
2020-03-26 18:06 ` Grant Likely
2020-03-27 8:03 ` Greg KH
2020-03-27 12:37 ` Grant Likely
2020-03-27 12:51 ` Greg KH
2020-06-08 9:17 ` Marco Felsch
2020-06-08 11:11 ` Andrzej Hajda
2020-06-09 6:45 ` Marco Felsch
2020-06-09 7:30 ` Saravana Kannan
2020-06-09 9:27 ` Andrzej Hajda
2020-06-09 12:10 ` Marco Felsch
2020-06-09 13:02 ` Andrzej Hajda
2020-06-09 13:16 ` Mark Brown
2020-06-08 11:13 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2020-06-08 11:59 ` Marco Felsch
2020-06-08 12:11 ` Andy Shevchenko
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='CAHp75VfQvT1VSXhNtfLMLzwYcN+4g=jVRkBHc=ZS0180BRzAJg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
--cc=a.hajda@samsung.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=balbi@kernel.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=fntoth@gmail.com \
--cc=grant.likely@arm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m.felsch@pengutronix.de \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=peter.ujfalusi@ti.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=saravanak@google.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).