[PATCH v2] powerpc/npu-dma.c: Fix deadlock in mmio_invalidate

[Michael Ellerman]

Alistair Popple <alistair at popple.id.au> writes:

>> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/npu-dma.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/npu-dma.c
>> > index 0a253b64ac5f..2fed4b116e19 100644
>> > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/npu-dma.c
>> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/npu-dma.c
>> > @@ -726,7 +749,7 @@ struct npu_context *pnv_npu2_init_context(struct pci_dev *gpdev,
>> >  	if (WARN_ON(of_property_read_u32(nvlink_dn, "ibm,npu-link-index",
>> >  							&nvlink_index)))
>> >  		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>> > -	npu_context->npdev[npu->index][nvlink_index] = npdev;
>> > +	WRITE_ONCE(npu_context->npdev[npu->index][nvlink_index], npdev);
>>   
>> When you're publishing a struct via a pointer you would typically have a
>> barrier between the stores that set the fields of the struct, and the
>> store that publishes the struct. Otherwise the reader can see a
>> partially setup struct.
>
> npdev is just a pointer to a pci_dev setup by the PCI code. We assign it to
> npdev[][] to indicate to the mmu notifiers that an invalidation should also
> be sent to this nvlink. However I don't think there is any ordering
> required wrt to the rest of the npu_context setup - so long as when the
> notifiers deference npu_context->npdev[i][j] it either sees a valid
> non-NULL pointer or NULL assigned to npdev[][] everything should be ok.

Yeah OK. You do then dereference npdev->bus, so you depend on that being
setup prior to the store that makes the npdev visible. But I guess we're
saying that happened eons ago somewhere in the PCI code and will have
happened by now.

>> I think here the npdev was setup somewhere else, and maybe there has
>> been an intervening barrier, but it's not clear. A comment at least
>> would be good.
>
> Yes it has been. I will submit a v3 with some more comments incorporating
> the above. Unless you think my argument is wrong?

If you can comment it then I think I'm happy with it.

>> In general I feel like a spinlock or two could significantly simply the
>> locking/ordering in this code, and given we're doing MMIOs anyway would
>> not affect performance.
>
> Indeed, I am working on a patch to add a spinlock around the allocation of
> the npu_context as pnv_npu2_destroy_context() needs to be serialised with
> respect to pnv_npu2_init_context() on the same mm_struct. I'd incorrectly
> assumed the driver would do this serialisation but apparently it can't so
> we need to ensure kref_get(npu_context) can't race with it's destruction
> (concurrent init_context() is protected by mmap_sem). I could fold that
> (unposted) patch into this one if you think that would be better?

No this is big enough already, I almost asked you to split it to make
the diff more readable :)

So just send the spinlock patch when it's ready as a separate patch.

cheers