Re: [PATCH v10 05/13] PCI: liveupdate: Auto-preserve upstream bridges across Live Update

[David Matlack]

On Fri Nov 6, 2026 at 5:34 PM UTC, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 04:25:21PM +0000, David Matlack wrote:
>>  static int pci_liveupdate_preserve_device(struct pci_flb_outgoing *outgoing,
>>  					  struct pci_dev *dev)
>>  {
>> -	struct pci_dev_ser *dev_ser;
>> -
>>  	if (dev->is_virtfn) {
>>  		pci_warn(dev, "Cannot preserve Virtual Functions\n");
>>  		return -EINVAL;
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	if (dev->liveupdate.outgoing) {
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Endpoint devices should not be preserved more than once.
>> +	 * Bridges are preserved once for every downstream device that
>> +	 * is preserved.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (dev->liveupdate.outgoing && !dev->subordinate) {
>>  		pci_warn(dev, "Device is already preserved\n");
>>  		return -EBUSY;
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	if (!pci_is_root_bus(dev->bus)) {
>> -		pci_warn(dev, "Cannot preserve devices behind bridges\n");
>> +	if (dev->liveupdate.outgoing && !dev->liveupdate.outgoing->refcount) {
>> +		pci_WARN(dev, 1, "Preserved device with 0 refcount!\n");
>>  		return -EINVAL;
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	dev_ser = pci_flb_alloc_dev_ser(outgoing);
>> -	if (IS_ERR(dev_ser))
>> -		return PTR_ERR(dev_ser);
>> +	if (!dev->liveupdate.outgoing) {
>> +		struct pci_dev_ser *dev_ser;
>>  
>> -	pci_info(dev, "Device will be preserved across next Live Update\n");
>> -	outgoing->ser->nr_devices++;
>> -	outgoing->ser->devices = kho_block_set_head_pa(&outgoing->block_set);
>> +		dev_ser = pci_flb_alloc_dev_ser(outgoing);
>> +		if (IS_ERR(dev_ser))
>> +			return PTR_ERR(dev_ser);
>>  
>> -	dev_ser->domain = pci_domain_nr(dev->bus);
>> -	dev_ser->bdf = pci_dev_id(dev);
>> -	dev_ser->refcount++;
>> +		pci_info(dev, "Device will be preserved across next Live Update\n");
>> +		outgoing->ser->nr_devices++;
>
> This looks a little funny because prior to this patch, nr_devices was
> always incremented in pci_liveupdate_preserve_device() and always
> decremented in pci_liveupdate_unpreserve_device().  Now it's only
> incremented once (per device) in pci_liveupdate_preserve_device(), so
> it looks unbalanced.
>
> My guess is this is because previously we didn't expect to preserve
> bridges at all, and now pci_liveupdate_preserve_device() might be
> called several times for a bridge, and it's all just fine, but it's a
> little subtle.

Right. nr_devices counts struct pci_dev_ser entries that are in use, so
it goes up when a device's refcount goes from 0 to 1 (the entry is
allocated) and down when it goes from 1 to 0 (the entry is released).
For endpoints that is every preserve/unpreserve call, but a bridge is
preserved once per preserved device below it, so most calls for a
bridge only change its refcount.

> I suppose the "(dev->liveupdate.outgoing && !dev->subordinate)" test
> above is what allows us to just increment refcount each time a bridge
> is preserved.  And the test around pci_flb_alloc_dev_ser() is doing
> basically the same thing.  I wonder if there's a way to connect them
> more explicitly.

Agreed, both points come from the same thing being spread out. I think
both can be fixed by splitting pci_liveupdate_preserve_device() into
"already preserved" and "first preservation" cases, and moving the
nr_devices accounting into helpers that allocate and release the
struct pci_dev_ser, so it is visibly paired:

	if (dev_ser) {
		/*
		 * Endpoints can only be preserved once. Bridges are
		 * preserved once for every preserved device below them.
		 */
		if (!dev->subordinate) {
			pci_warn(dev, "Device is already preserved\n");
			return -EBUSY;
		}
		...
	} else {
		dev_ser = pci_liveupdate_alloc_dev_ser(outgoing, dev);
		if (IS_ERR(dev_ser))
			return PTR_ERR(dev_ser);
	}

	dev_ser->refcount++;

with pci_liveupdate_unpreserve_device() calling a matching
pci_liveupdate_free_dev_ser() when the refcount drops to 0.

The helpers would only manage the entry and nr_devices, not the
refcount, so there would still be a single refcount++ shared by both
paths, as you asked for in v8.

Since the series is already in liveupdate.git, I'll send that as a
follow-up patch on top of lu-pci-preservation. If you are ok with that,
then an R-b or A-b tag on this patch would still be needed.

Otherwise, happy to send a v11.

Thanks for the review!