Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] driver core: fw_devlink: Improve handling of cyclic dependencies

[Marek Szyprowski]

On 14.09.2021 06:39, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> When we have a dependency of the form:
>
> Device-A -> Device-C
> 	Device-B
>
> Device-C -> Device-B
>
> Where,
> * Indentation denotes "child of" parent in previous line.
> * X -> Y denotes X is consumer of Y based on firmware (Eg: DT).
>
> We have cyclic dependency: device-A -> device-C -> device-B -> device-A
>
> fw_devlink current treats device-C -> device-B dependency as an invalid
> dependency and doesn't enforce it but leaves the rest of the
> dependencies as is.
>
> While the current behavior is necessary, it is not sufficient if the
> false dependency in this example is actually device-A -> device-C. When
> this is the case, device-C will correctly probe defer waiting for
> device-B to be added, but device-A will be incorrectly probe deferred by
> fw_devlink waiting on device-C to probe successfully. Due to this, none
> of the devices in the cycle will end up probing.
>
> To fix this, we need to go relax all the dependencies in the cycle like
> we already do in the other instances where fw_devlink detects cycles.
> A real world example of this was reported[1] and analyzed[2].
>
> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0a2c4106-7f48-2bb5-048e-8c001a7c3fda@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAGETcx8peaew90SWiux=TyvuGgvTQOmO4BFALz7aj0Za5QdNFQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> Fixes: f9aa460672c9 ("driver core: Refactor fw_devlink feature")
> Reported-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   drivers/base/core.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> index e65dd803a453..316df6027093 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> @@ -1772,14 +1772,21 @@ static int fw_devlink_create_devlink(struct device *con,
>   	 * be broken by applying logic. Check for these types of cycles and
>   	 * break them so that devices in the cycle probe properly.
>   	 *
> -	 * If the supplier's parent is dependent on the consumer, then
> -	 * the consumer-supplier dependency is a false dependency. So,
> -	 * treat it as an invalid link.
> +	 * If the supplier's parent is dependent on the consumer, then the
> +	 * consumer and supplier have a cyclic dependency. Since fw_devlink
> +	 * can't tell which of the inferred dependencies are incorrect, don't
> +	 * enforce probe ordering between any of the devices in this cyclic
> +	 * dependency. Do this by relaxing all the fw_devlink device links in
> +	 * this cycle and by treating the fwnode link between the consumer and
> +	 * the supplier as an invalid dependency.
>   	 */
>   	sup_dev = fwnode_get_next_parent_dev(sup_handle);
>   	if (sup_dev && device_is_dependent(con, sup_dev)) {
> -		dev_dbg(con, "Not linking to %pfwP - False link\n",
> -			sup_handle);
> +		dev_info(con, "Fixing up cyclic dependency with %pfwP (%s)\n",
> +			 sup_handle, dev_name(sup_dev));
> +		device_links_write_lock();
> +		fw_devlink_relax_cycle(con, sup_dev);
> +		device_links_write_unlock();
>   		ret = -EINVAL;
>   	} else {
>   		/*

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland