Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Lock its device list during find and create its device

From: Marc Zyngier
Date: Mon Jan 28 2019 - 08:51:42 EST


On 28/01/2019 07:13, Zheng Xiang wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> On 2019/1/26 19:38, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Hi Zheng,
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 06:16:24 +0000,
>> Zheng Xiang <zhengxiang9@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently each PCI device under a PCI Bridge shares the same device id
>>> and ITS device. Assume there are two PCI devices call its_msi_prepare
>>> concurrently and they are both going to find and create their ITS
>>> device. There is a chance that the later one couldn't find ITS device
>>> before the other one creating the ITS device. It will cause the later
>>> one to create a different ITS device even if they have the same
>>> device_id.
>>
>> Interesting finding. Is this something you've actually seen in practice
>> with two devices being probed in parallel? Or something that you found
>> by inspection?
>
> Yes, I find this problem after analyzing the reason of VM hung. At last, I
> find that the virtio-gpu cannot receive the MSI interrupts due to sharing
> a same event_id as virtio-serial.
>
> See https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/10/299 for the bug report.
>
> This problem can be reproducted with high probability by booting a Qemu/KVM
> VM with a virtio-serial controller and a virtio-gpu adding to a PCI Bridge
> and also adding some delay before creating ITS device.

Fair enough. Do you mind sharing your QEMU command line? It'd be useful
if I could reproduce it here (and would give me a way to check that it
doesn't regress).

>
>>
>> The whole RID aliasing is such a mess, I wish we never supported
>> it. Anyway, comments below.
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zheng Xiang <zhengxiang9@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c | 52 +++++++++++++++-------------------------
>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>>> index db20e99..397edc8 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>>> @@ -2205,25 +2205,6 @@ static void its_cpu_init_collections(void)
>>> raw_spin_unlock(&its_lock);
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static struct its_device *its_find_device(struct its_node *its, u32 dev_id)
>>> -{
>>> - struct its_device *its_dev = NULL, *tmp;
>>> - unsigned long flags;
>>> -
>>> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&its->lock, flags);
>>> -
>>> - list_for_each_entry(tmp, &its->its_device_list, entry) {
>>> - if (tmp->device_id == dev_id) {
>>> - its_dev = tmp;
>>> - break;
>>> - }
>>> - }
>>> -
>>> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&its->lock, flags);
>>> -
>>> - return its_dev;
>>> -}
>>> -
>>> static struct its_baser *its_get_baser(struct its_node *its, u32 type)
>>> {
>>> int i;
>>> @@ -2321,7 +2302,7 @@ static bool its_alloc_vpe_table(u32 vpe_id)
>>> static struct its_device *its_create_device(struct its_node *its, u32 dev_id,
>>> int nvecs, bool alloc_lpis)
>>> {
>>> - struct its_device *dev;
>>> + struct its_device *dev = NULL, *tmp;
>>> unsigned long *lpi_map = NULL;
>>> unsigned long flags;
>>> u16 *col_map = NULL;
>>> @@ -2331,6 +2312,24 @@ static struct its_device *its_create_device(struct its_node *its, u32 dev_id,
>>> int nr_ites;
>>> int sz;
>>>
>>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&its->lock, flags);
>>> + list_for_each_entry(tmp, &its->its_device_list, entry) {
>>> + if (tmp->device_id == dev_id) {
>>> + dev = tmp;
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> + if (dev) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * We already have seen this ID, probably through
>>> + * another alias (PCI bridge of some sort). No need to
>>> + * create the device.
>>> + */
>>> + pr_debug("Reusing ITT for devID %x\n", dev_id);
>>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&its->lock, flags);
>>> + return dev;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> if (!its_alloc_device_table(its, dev_id))
>>
>> You're now performing all sort of allocations in an atomic context,
>> which is pretty horrible (and the kernel will shout at you for doing
>> so).
>>
>> We could probably keep the current logic and wrap it around a mutex
>> instead, which would give us the appropriate guarantees WRT allocations.
>> Something along those lines (untested):>
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>> index db20e992a40f..99feb62e63ba 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c
>> @@ -97,9 +97,14 @@ struct its_device;
>> * The ITS structure - contains most of the infrastructure, with the
>> * top-level MSI domain, the command queue, the collections, and the
>> * list of devices writing to it.
>> + *
>> + * alloc_lock has to be taken for any allocation that can happen at
>> + * run time, while the spinlock must be taken to parse data structures
>> + * such as the device list.
>> */
>> struct its_node {
>> raw_spinlock_t lock;
>> + struct mutex alloc_lock;
>> struct list_head entry;
>> void __iomem *base;
>> phys_addr_t phys_base;
>> @@ -2421,6 +2426,7 @@ static int its_msi_prepare(struct irq_domain *domain, struct device *dev,
>> struct its_device *its_dev;
>> struct msi_domain_info *msi_info;
>> u32 dev_id;
>> + int err = 0;
>>
>> /*
>> * We ignore "dev" entierely, and rely on the dev_id that has
>> @@ -2443,6 +2449,7 @@ static int its_msi_prepare(struct irq_domain *domain, struct device *dev,
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> + mutex_lock(&its->alloc_lock);
>> its_dev = its_find_device(its, dev_id);
>> if (its_dev) {
>> /*
>> @@ -2455,11 +2462,14 @@ static int its_msi_prepare(struct irq_domain *domain, struct device *dev,
>> }
>>
>> its_dev = its_create_device(its, dev_id, nvec, true);
>> - if (!its_dev)
>> - return -ENOMEM;
>> + if (!its_dev) {
>> + err = -ENOMEM;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>>
>> pr_debug("ITT %d entries, %d bits\n", nvec, ilog2(nvec));
>> out:
>> + mutex_unlock(&its->alloc_lock);
>> info->scratchpad[0].ptr = its_dev;
>> return 0;
>
> Should it return *err* here?

Absolutely. Does it fix the problem for you?

Thanks,

M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...