From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
jiangshanlai@gmail.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
zwisler@kernel.org, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
bvanassche@acm.org
Subject: Re: [driver-core PATCH v6 4/9] driver core: Move async_synchronize_full call
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 09:38:01 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ec672fcf5924ef267f35b11c13ddc50c815b1a9f.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4ibARHP1Gji2cZQ704BeiKL26Bh13G58eyB+PjQJSD58w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 18:11 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:07 AM Alexander Duyck
> <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Move the async_synchronize_full call out of __device_release_driver and
> > into driver_detach.
> >
> > The idea behind this is that the async_synchronize_full call will only
> > guarantee that any existing async operations are flushed. This doesn't do
> > anything to guarantee that a hotplug event that may occur while we are
> > doing the release of the driver will not be asynchronously scheduled.
> >
> > By moving this into the driver_detach path we can avoid potential deadlocks
> > as we aren't holding the device lock at this point and we should not have
> > the driver we want to flush loaded so the flush will take care of any
> > asynchronous events the driver we are detaching might have scheduled.
> >
>
> What problem is this patch solving in practice, because if there were
> drivers issuing async work from probe they would need to be
> responsible for flushing it themselves. That said it seems broken that
> the async probing infrastructure takes the device_lock inside
> async_schedule and then holds the lock when calling
> async_syncrhonize_full. Is it just luck that this hasn't caused
> deadlocks in practice?
My understanding is that it has caused some deadlocks. There was
another patch set that Bart Van Assche had submitted that was
addressing this. I just tweaked my patch set to address both the issues
he had seen as well as the performance improvements included in my
original patch set.
> Given that the device_lock is hidden from lockdep I think it would be
> helpful to have a custom lock_map_acquire() setup, similar to the
> workqueue core, to try to keep the locking rules enforced /
> documented.
>
> The only documentation I can find for async-probe deadlock avoidance
> is the comment block in do_init_module() for async_probe_requested.
Would it make sense to just add any lockdep or deadlock documentation
as a seperate patch? I can work on it but I am not sure it makes sense
to add to this patch since there is a chance this one will need to be
backported to stable at some point.
> Stepping back a bit, does this patch have anything to do with the
> performance improvement, or is it a separate "by the way I also found
> this" kind of patch?
This is more of a seperate "by the way" type of patch based on the
discussion Bart and I had about how to best address the issue. There
may be some improvement since we only call async_synchronize_full once
and only when we are removing the driver, but I don't think it would be
very noticable.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-27 17:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-08 18:06 [driver-core PATCH v6 0/9] Add NUMA aware async_schedule calls Alexander Duyck
2018-11-08 18:06 ` [driver-core PATCH v6 1/9] workqueue: Provide queue_work_node to queue work near a given NUMA node Alexander Duyck
2018-11-27 1:01 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-08 18:06 ` [driver-core PATCH v6 2/9] async: Add support for queueing on specific " Alexander Duyck
2018-11-08 23:36 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-11 19:32 ` Greg KH
2018-11-11 19:53 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-11 20:35 ` Greg KH
2018-11-11 22:17 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-11 23:27 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-11 19:59 ` Pavel Machek
2018-11-11 20:33 ` Greg KH
2018-11-11 21:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-13 22:10 ` Pavel Machek
2018-11-27 1:10 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-08 18:06 ` [driver-core PATCH v6 3/9] device core: Consolidate locking and unlocking of parent and device Alexander Duyck
2018-11-08 22:43 ` jane.chu
2018-11-08 22:48 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-27 1:44 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-08 18:07 ` [driver-core PATCH v6 4/9] driver core: Move async_synchronize_full call Alexander Duyck
2018-11-27 2:11 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-27 17:38 ` Alexander Duyck [this message]
2018-11-27 20:35 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-27 21:36 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-27 22:26 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-08 18:07 ` [driver-core PATCH v6 5/9] driver core: Establish clear order of operations for deferred probe and remove Alexander Duyck
2018-11-08 23:47 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-08 18:07 ` [driver-core PATCH v6 6/9] driver core: Probe devices asynchronously instead of the driver Alexander Duyck
2018-11-08 23:59 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-27 2:48 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-27 17:57 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-27 18:32 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-08 18:07 ` [driver-core PATCH v6 7/9] driver core: Attach devices on CPU local to device node Alexander Duyck
2018-11-27 4:50 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-08 18:07 ` [driver-core PATCH v6 8/9] PM core: Use new async_schedule_dev command Alexander Duyck
2018-11-27 4:52 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-08 18:07 ` [driver-core PATCH v6 9/9] libnvdimm: Schedule device registration on node local to the device Alexander Duyck
2018-11-27 2:21 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-27 18:04 ` Alexander Duyck
2018-11-27 19:34 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-27 20:33 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-27 20:50 ` Dan Williams
2018-11-27 21:22 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-11-27 22:34 ` Dan Williams
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=ec672fcf5924ef267f35b11c13ddc50c815b1a9f.camel@linux.intel.com \
--to=alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=zwisler@kernel.org \
/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).