[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] acpi: Introduce prepare_remove device operation
On 2012/11/30 6:27, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 12:48 +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2012/11/29 2:41, Toshi Kani wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 19:05 +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> On 2012/11/24 1:50, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
>>>>> As discussed in
>>>>> the driver core remove function needs to always succeed. This means we need
>>>>> to know that the device can be successfully removed before acpi_bus_trim /
>>>>> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device are called. This can cause panics when OSPM-initiated
>>>>> or SCI-initiated eject of memory devices fail e.g with:
>>>>> echo 1 >/sys/bus/pci/devices/PNP0C80:XX/eject
>>>>> since the ACPI core goes ahead and ejects the device regardless of whether the
>>>>> the memory is still in use or not.
>>>>> For this reason a new acpi_device operation called prepare_remove is introduced.
>>>>> This operation should be registered for acpi devices whose removal (from kernel
>>>>> perspective) can fail. Memory devices fall in this category.
>>>>> acpi_bus_remove() is changed to handle removal in 2 steps:
>>>>> - preparation for removal i.e. perform part of removal that can fail. Should
>>>>> succeed for device and all its children.
>>>>> - if above step was successfull, proceed to actual device removal
>>>> Hi Vasilis,
>>>> We met the same problem when we doing computer node hotplug, It is a good idea
>>>> to introduce prepare_remove before actual device removal.
>>>> I think we could do more in prepare_remove, such as rollback. In most cases, we can
>>>> offline most of memory sections except kernel used pages now, should we rollback
>>>> and online the memory sections when prepare_remove failed ?
>>> I think hot-plug operation should have all-or-nothing semantics. That
>>> is, an operation should either complete successfully, or rollback to the
>>> original state.
>> Yes, we have the same point of view with you. We handle this problem in the ACPI
>> based hot-plug framework as following:
>> 1) hot add / hot remove complete successfully if no error happens;
>> 2) automatic rollback to the original state if meets some error ;
>> 3) rollback to the original if hot-plug operation cancelled by user ;
> Cool!
>>>> As you may know, the ACPI based hotplug framework we are working on already addressed
>>>> this problem, and the way we slove this problem is a bit like yours.
>>>> We introduce hp_ops in struct acpi_device_ops:
>>>> struct acpi_device_ops {
>>>> acpi_op_add add;
>>>> acpi_op_remove remove;
>>>> acpi_op_start start;
>>>> acpi_op_bind bind;
>>>> acpi_op_unbind unbind;
>>>> acpi_op_notify notify;
>>>> struct acpihp_dev_ops *hp_ops;
>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG */
>>>> };
>>>> in hp_ops, we divide the prepare_remove into six small steps, that is:
>>>> 1) pre_release(): optional step to mark device going to be removed/busy
>>>> 2) release(): reclaim device from running system
>>>> 3) post_release(): rollback if cancelled by user or error happened
>>>> 4) pre_unconfigure(): optional step to solve possible dependency issue
>>>> 5) unconfigure(): remove devices from running system
>>>> 6) post_unconfigure(): free resources used by devices
>>>> In this way, we can easily rollback if error happens.
>>>> How do you think of this solution, any suggestion ? I think we can achieve
>>>> a better way for sharing ideas. :)
>>> Yes, sharing idea is good. :) I do not know if we need all 6 steps (I
>>> have not looked at all your changes yet..), but in my mind, a hot-plug
>>> operation should be composed with the following 3 phases.
>> Good idea ! we also implement a hot-plug operation in 3 phases:
>> 1) acpihp_drv_pre_execute
>> 2) acpihp_drv_execute
>> 3) acpihp_drv_post_execute
>> you may refer to :
> Great. Yes, I will take a look.

Thanks, any comments are welcomed :)

>>> 1. Validate phase - Verify if the request is a supported operation. All
>>> known restrictions are verified at this phase. For instance, if a
>>> hot-remove request involves kernel memory, it is failed in this phase.
>>> Since this phase makes no change, no rollback is necessary to fail.
>> Yes, we have done this in acpihp_drv_pre_execute, and check following things:
>> 1) Hot-plugble or not. the instance kernel memory you mentioned is also checked
>> when memory device remove;
> Agreed.
>> 2) Dependency check involved. For instance, if hot-add a memory device,
>> processor should be added first, otherwise it's not valid to this operation.
> I think FW should be the one that assures such dependency. That is,
> when a memory device object is marked as present/enabled/functioning, it
> should be ready for the OS to use.

Yes, BIOS should do something for the dependency, because BIOS knows the
actual hardware topology. The ACPI specification provides _EDL method to
tell OS the eject device list, but still has no method to tell OS the add device
list now.

For some cases, OS should analyze the dependency in the validate phase. For example,
when hot remove a node (container device), OS should analyze the dependency to get
the remove order as following:
1) Host bridge;
2) Memory devices;
3) Processor devices;
4) Container device itself;

In this way, we can check that all the devices are hot-plugble or not under the
container device before execute phase, and further more, we can remove devices
in order to avoid some crash problems.

>> 3) Race condition check. if the device and its dependent device is in hot-plug
>> process, another request will be denied.
> I agree that hot-plug operation should be serialized. I think another
> request should be either queued or denied based on the caller's intent
> (i.e. wait-ok or no-wait).
>> No rollback is needed for the above checks.
> Great.
>>> 2. Execute phase - Perform hot-add / hot-remove operation that can be
>>> rolled-back in case of error or cancel.
>> In this phase, we introduce a state machine for the hot-plugble device,
>> please refer to:
>> I think we have the same idea for the major framework, but the ACPI based
>> hot-plug framework implement it differently in detail, right ?
> Yes, I am surprised with the similarity. What I described is something
> we had implemented for other OS. I am still studying how best we can
> improve the Linux hotplug code. :)

Great! your experience is very appreciable for me. I think we can share ideas
to achieve a better solution for Linux hotplug code. :)


> Thanks,
> -Toshi
> .

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-03 06:01    [W:0.184 / U:1.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site