Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Addressing complex dependencies and semantics (v2)

[Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>]

Dear All,


On 2016-07-27 18:50, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> (first e-mail bounced)
>
> Rafael has proposed has a set of patches to help deal with functional
> dependencies between devices to help with power management. Mauro has
> spoken briefly before over the media controller feature graph used to help
> build relationship between complex dynamic dependencies. Dmitry has taken on
> to help enable asynchronous probe, however for built-in devices this requires
> very specific platform knowledge otherwise using async probe will blow up
> your kernel -- if you get it right though, using async probe can help with
> boot. Even if you sort things out well -- there are current limitations with
> ordering semantics available, case in point the x86 IOMMUs already have a small
> sort run which expand beyond the core init entries allowed, and on top of this
> the you still have device driver dependencies which are implicitly setting
> order via link order: consider the ordering between AMD IOMMUv1, AMD IOMMUv2,
> AMD KFD, and AMD radeon. This has made us realize that at the module front the
> current 2 levels of init calls limits our ordering semantics leaving only link
> order as a last measure when things are built-in. Likewise I've recently have
> had to look into dependency issues early in boot been due to differences
> between paravirtualization and non-PV kernels, this lead to some current work
> to help generalize custom section uses (linker tables) and then for us to
> consider expanding x86 semantics early in boot to address some of the
> shortcomings implicit by the some paravirtualized boot path.
>
> The goal behind Rafael's work's goal is essentially to avoid code duplication
> (as without doing that in the core many drivers potentially need to do the same
> thing in the same way) and help to address the asynchronous system
> suspend/resume case that cannot be addressed by any driver by itself anyway.
> The effort behind Rafael's, Mauro's, Dmitry's and my work are all independent
> however the patterns are very similar: addressing complex dependencies and
> relationships at run time and available semantics for these.
>
> This begs a few questions:
>
>   o Are there generic issues here ?
>   o Are there generic solutions possible ?
>   o What advanced techniques are out there to deal with this and how
>     are efforts in those domains going ?
>
> As an example of taste for the last item, consider Vegard Nossum's involvement
> with a SAT solver (picosat) for AFL fuzzing with ext4 on built-in kernels --
> and the possibility to share some of the tools to address some of the
> dependencies here. As it stands kconfig's semantics are a bit of a mess, and
> in turn often tools have to do a bit of inference work due to some of this,
> part if this problem is one reason why current kconfig-sat efforts are a bit
> stalled.
>
> Benefits for addressing some of these topics generally has quite a bit of
> uses in different domains:
>
>    o Speeding up boot time
>    o Avoiding dead code, or correctness
>    o Shrinking kernel size
>
> This is a pretty generally broad topic, and it does cross subsystems,
> I'm proposing it as a TECH TOPIC given that I had already poked Dmitry,
> Mauro, and Rafael in February this year about a LPC microconference
> about this sort of stuff as I thought that would have been a better venue --
> however even early then (February !) it seems they were busy with existing LPC
> microconferences. I recently poked them and they seem to agree discussing this
> somehow at KS would be good. Due to existing time constraints at LPC, but given
> most interested folks may be at KS or Plumbers, it'd be good to use shared time
> at KS and LPC to get folks to organize ideas, problems, and solutions and in a
> more adhoc manner, and then enable organically folks interested to organize and
> discuss short term and long term roadmaps on respective work items. Its unclear
> yet if there is a very CORE TOPIC here -- my guess would be that if there were
> we'd find out at the next KS, but not this one. A workshop for this might
> help.
>
> Folks required to help with these topics:
>
>    o Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> (async probe)
>    o "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> (functional dependencies)
>    o Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> (taking on some of
> Rafael's previous work)
>    o Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com> (feature graph)
>    o Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com> (SAT)
>    o Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@gmail.com>  (wary of some
> kconfig issues)

I really wonder if all those 3 topics I identified are really connected 
enough to
be discussed together. I see the following topics:
1. functional dependencies between devices in pm and runtime pm
2. the device probe order (and how to avoid deferred probe)
3. SAT solver for Kconfig and others

Rafaels patches (which I already used for solving the problem of runtime 
pm for
Exynos IOMMU) are just providing infrastructure to create dependencies 
for power
management (both for system/resume and runtime pm). They don't solve any 
probe
dependencies and all devices, which are a part of the dependency have to
explicitly register for it. I would like to help resolving all the 
issues with
those patches and get them merged, because they implement a feature that we
had to workaround in the internal trees for at least last 3 years.

Solving probe order problem might use the dependency links 
infrastructure, but
I still don't get why we would need to have SAT solver for it.

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