Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201014193615.1045792-1-michael.auchter@ni.com>
 <d5f8a417-8db9-9385-dfea-9512b4680124@gmail.com> <CAGETcx_869kxKbgRO68Wp9Qq8vAp8fqpAe_Lkjx8vZdW9RNTsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201028162540.GA2310713@xaphan>
In-Reply-To: <20201028162540.GA2310713@xaphan>
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Oct 2020 11:03:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGETcx8mD2rg92Lk6bM4HUT0yiVa3RbMARJTLjYrhyqOwZc=4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Fix errors on DT overlay removal with devlinks
To:     Michael Auchter <michael.auchter@ni.com>
Cc:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:25 AM Michael Auchter <michael.auchter@ni.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Saravana,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to look into this!
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 12:10:33PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 2:02 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Saravana,
> > >
> > > Michael found an issue related to the removal of a devicetree node
> > > which involves devlinks:
> > >
> > > On 10/14/20 2:36 PM, Michael Auchter wrote:
> > > > After updating to v5.9, I've started seeing errors in the kernel log
> > > > when using device tree overlays. Specifically, the problem seems to
> > > > happen when removing a device tree overlay that contains two devices
> > > > with some dependency between them (e.g., a device that provides a clock
> > > > and a device that consumes that clock). Removing such an overlay results
> > > > in:
> > > >
> > > >   OF: ERROR: memory leak, expected refcount 1 instead of 2, of_node_get()/of_node_put() unbalanced - destroy
> > > >   OF: ERROR: memory leak, expected refcount 1 instead of 2, of_node_get()/of_node_put() unbalanced - destroy
> > > >
> > > > followed by hitting some REFCOUNT_WARNs in refcount.c
> > > >
> > > > In the first patch, I've included a unittest that can be used to
> > > > reproduce this when built with CONFIG_OF_UNITTEST [1].
> > > >
> > > > I believe the issue is caused by the cleanup performed when releasing
> > > > the devlink device that's created to represent the dependency between
> > > > devices. The devlink device has references to the consumer and supplier
> > > > devices, which it drops in device_link_free; the devlink device's
> > > > release callback calls device_link_free via call_srcu.
> > > >
> > > > When the overlay is being removed, all devices are removed, and
> > > > eventually the release callback for the devlink device run, and
> > > > schedules cleanup using call_srcu. Before device_link_free can and call
> > > > put_device on the consumer/supplier, the rest of the overlay removal
> > > > process runs, resulting in the error traces above.
> > >
> > > When a devicetree node in an overlay is removed, the remove code expects
> > > all previous users of the related device to have done the appropriate put
> > > of the device and to have no later references.
> > >
> > > As Michael described above, the devlink release callback defers the
> > > put_device().  The cleanup via srcu was implemented in commit
> > > 843e600b8a2b01463c4d873a90b2c2ea8033f1f6 "driver core: Fix sleeping
> > > in invalid context during device link deletion" to solve yet another
> > > issue.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Patches 2 and 3 are an attempt at fixing this: call srcu_barrier to wait
> > > > for any pending device_link_free's to execute before continuing on with
> > > > the removal process.
> > > >
> > > > These patches resolve the issue, but probably not in the best way. In
> > > > particular, it seems strange to need to leak details of devlinks into
> > > > the device tree overlay code. So, I'd be curious to get some feedback or
> > > > hear any other ideas for how to resolve this issue.
> > >
> > > I agree with Michael that adding an indirect call of srcu_barrier(&device_links_srcu)
> > > into the devicetree overlay code is not an appropriate solution.
> >
> > I kind of see your point too. I wonder if the srcu_barrier() should
> > happen inside like so:
> > device_del() -> device_links_purge()->srcu_barrier()
> >
> > I don't know what contention the use of SRCUs in device links was
> > trying to avoid, but I think the srcu_barrier() call path I suggested
> > above shouldn't be a problem. If that fixes the issue, the best way to
> > know if it's an issue is to send out a patch and see if Rafael has any
> > problem with it :)
>
> I was able to test this by adding the srcu_barrier() at the end of
> device_links_purge(), and that does seem to have fixed the issue.

Thanks for testing my suggestion. If you send out a patch for that,
I'd appreciated a Suggested-by: tag.

> > > Is there some other way to fix the problem that 843e600b8a2b solves without
> > > deferring the put_device() done by the devlink release callback?
> >
> > Ok I finally got some time to look into this closely.
> >
> > Even if you revert 843e600b8a2b, you'll see that device_link_free()
> > (which drops the reference to the consumer and supplier devices) was
> > scheduled to run when the SRCU clean up occurs. So I think this issue
> > was present even before 843e600b8a2b, but commit 843e600b8a2b just
> > made it more likely to hit this scenario because it introduces some
> > delay in dropping the ref count of the supplier and consumer by going
> > through the device link device's release path. So, I think this issue
> > isn't related to 843e600b8a2b.
> >
> > As to why 843e600b8a2b had to be written to call call_srcu() from the
> > device link device's release path, it's a mess of dependencies/delays:
> > 1. The device link device is part of the struct device_link. So we
> > can't free device_link before the device_link.link_dev refcount goes
> > to 0.
> > 2. But I can't assume device_link.link_dev's refcount will go to 0 as
> > soon as I call put_device() on it because of
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_KOBJECT_RELEASE which frees up the kobject after a random
> > delay.
> > 3. The use of SRCU also means I can't free device_link until the SRCU
> > is cleaned up.
> >
> > Because of (1), (2) and (3), when the device_link_del() (or any of the
> > other device link deletion APIs are called) I first have to do a
> > put_device(device_link.link_dev) to make sure the device memory is no
> > longer referenced, then trigger an SRCU clean up and then in the
> > scheduled SRCU cleanup I can free struct device_link. And obviously,
> > until struct device_link is ready to be freed up, I can't drop the
> > reference to the supplier and consumer devices (as that old copy of
> > device_link could be used by some code to refer to the supplier and
> > consumer devices).
> >
> > Hope that helps explain the SRCU and device link device release dependencies.
> >
> > Also, even if this patch series is applied as is, I wonder if the
> > current overlay code has a bug related to CONFIG_DEBUG_KOBJECT_RELEASE
> > delaying the actual freeing of the device. Something to look into?
>
> I also tried enabling CONFIG_DEBUG_KOBJECT_RELEASE... with or without
> the addition of srcu_barrier() to device_links_purge(), I can't boot
> successfully when CONFIG_OF_UNITTEST=y &&
> CONFIG_DEBUG_KOBJECT_RELEASE=y: there are a ton of errors that result
> from this combo.
>
> Disabling the unittests and booting with CONFIG_DEBUG_KOBJECT_RELEASE=y,
> I _do_ still see the errors mentioned in my original message when
> removing an overlay. So yeah, it does seem like there are some latent
> issues here...

Thanks for confirming my suspicion. I assume you see these errors even
with the srcu_barrier() call?

I'll leave this to Frank then :)

-Saravana