Re: [PATCH 6/7] PCI: Make sure VF's driver get attached after PF's

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 03:01:08PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 02:49 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 05:30:32PM -0400, Don Dutile wrote:
> >> On 05/14/2013 05:39 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >>> On 05/14/2013 12:59 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Alexander Duyck
> >>>> <alexander.h.duyck@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> >>>>> On 05/14/2013 11:44 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Alexander Duyck
> >>>>>> <alexander.h.duyck@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> >>>>>>> I'm sorry, but what is the point of this patch?  With device assignment
> >>>>>>> it is always possible to have VFs loaded and the PF driver unloaded
> >>>>>>> since you cannot remove the VFs if they are assigned to a VM.
> >>>>>> unload PF driver will not call pci_disable_sriov?
> >>>>> You cannot call pci_disable_sriov because you will panic all of the
> >>>>> guests that have devices assigned.
> >>>> ixgbe_remove did call pci_disable_sriov...
> >>>>
> >>>> for guest panic, that is another problem.
> >>>> just like you pci passthrough with real pci device and hotremove the
> >>>> card in host.
> >>>>
> >>>> ...
> >>>
> >>> I suggest you take another look.  In ixgbe_disable_sriov, which is the
> >>> function that is called we do a check for assigned VFs.  If they are
> >>> assigned then we do not call pci_disable_sriov.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> So how does your patch actually fix this problem?  It seems like it is
> >>>>> just avoiding it.
> >>>> yes, until the first one is done.
> >>>
> >>> Avoiding the issue doesn't fix the underlying problem and instead you
> >>> are likely just introducing more bugs as a result.
> >>>
> >>>>> From what I can tell your problem is originating in pci_call_probe.  I
> >>>>> believe it is calling work_on_cpu and that doesn't seem correct since
> >>>>> the work should be taking place on a CPU already local to the PF. You
> >>>>> might want to look there to see why you are trying to schedule work on a
> >>>>> CPU which should be perfectly fine for you to already be doing your work on.
> >>>> it always try to go with local cpu with same pxm.
> >>>
> >>> The problem is we really shouldn't be calling work_for_cpu in this case
> >>> since we are already on the correct CPU.  What probably should be
> >>> happening is that pci_call_probe should be doing a check to see if the
> >>> current CPU is already contained within the device node map and if so
> >>> just call local_pci_probe directly.  That way you can avoid deadlocking
> >>> the system by trying to flush the CPU queue of the CPU you are currently on.
> >>>
> >> That's the patch that Michael Tsirkin posted for a fix,
> >> but it was noted that if you have the case where the _same_ driver is used for vf & pf,
> >> other deadlocks may occur.
> >> It would work in the case of ixgbe/ixgbevf, but not for something like
> >> the Mellanox pf/vf driver (which is the same).
> >>
> > 
> > I think our conclusion was this is a false positive for Mellanox.
> > If not, we need to understand what the deadlock is better.
> > 
> 
> As I understand the issue, the problem is not a deadlock for Mellanox
> (At least with either your patch or mine applied), the issue is that the
> PF is not ready to handle VFs when pci_enable_sriov is called due to
> some firmware issues.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alex

I haven't seen Mellanox guys say anything like this on the list.
Pointers?
All I saw is some lockdep warnings and Tejun says they are bogus ...


-- 
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/