lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: e1000e pci_disable_link_state_locked() issues
On 2015/5/21 3:47, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> I think we have some issues with the e1000e usage of
> pci_disable_link_state_locked(), which Yinghai added with 9f728f53dd70
> ("PCI/e1000e: Add and use pci_disable_link_state_locked()").
>
> That fixed an AER deadlock in the following path, where pci_bus_sem is held
> by pci_walk_bus(), and we deadlocked when we tried to re-acquire it in
> pci_disable_link_state():
>
> do_recovery
> broadcast_error_message(..., report_slot_reset)
> pci_walk_bus
> down_read(&pci_bus_sem)
> cb(...) # report_slot_reset
> report_slot_reset
> dev->driver->err_handler->slot_reset # e1000_io_slot_reset
> e1000_io_slot_reset
> e1000e_disable_aspm
> pci_disable_link_state
> down_read(&pci_bus_sem)
>
> 9f728f53dd70 fixed that by changing e1000e_disable_aspm() to use
> pci_disable_link_state_locked() instead, which assumes pci_bus_sem is
> already held.
>
> That's fine for the e1000_io_slot_reset() path, where pci_bus_sem really
> *is* held. But e1000e_disable_aspm() is also called from e1000_probe() and
> __e1000_resume(), and in those paths, we *don't* hold pci_bus_sem.
>
> In effect, the caller of pci_disable_link_state_locked() is promising that
> pci_bus_sem is held, and __pci_disable_link_state() relies on that promise
> for its locking. But e1000e isn't upholding its end of the bargain.
>
> I'm not 100% sure __pci_disable_link_state() actually *needs* that locking:
> it is only called from a driver, and it should be impossible for a device
> or any upstream bridge to go away while a driver is bound to it. If

Another question, when pci_disable_link_state() is called in driver, the device and
its upstream bridge do not go away while a driver is bound to it, but what about a new
function device adding to the upstream bridge secondary bus. In this case, traverse
the pci_bus->devices list may be not safe.


> somebody wanted to analyze this further and propose a patch to remove the
> locking (if it seems safe), that would be great.
>
> But in any case, __pci_disable_link_state() should be able to rely on its
> callers following the rules, so I'd like to see an e1000e change to use
> pci_disable_link_state() from the paths where pci_bus_sem is not held.
>
> Bjorn
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>


--
Thanks!
Yijing



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-22 10:01    [W:0.042 / U:0.752 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site