[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/10] ACPI / hotplug: Move container-specific code out of the core
(2013/11/29 22:08), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, November 29, 2013 11:36:55 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
> Hi,
>> Replying to this mail may be wrong.
> OK, so this particular patch doesn't break things any more?


>> Do you remember following your patch?
>> I want to add autoeject variable in acpi_hotplug_profile structure and
>> set autoecjet of container device "false".
> Then after the series the $subject patch belongs to it will work almost the
> same way as /sys/firmware/acpi/container/enabled (hot add will still work after
> patch [4/10] if "enabled" is 0), but only for containers.
>> Currently, I have a problem on ejecting container device. Since linux-3.12,
>> container device is removed by acpi_scan_hot_remove.
>> I think this has two problems.
>> 1. easily fail
>> My container device has CPU device and Memory device, and maximum size of
>> memory is 3Tbyte. In my environment, hot removing container device fails
>> on offlining memory if memory is used by application.
>> I think if offlininig memory, we must retly to offline memory several
>> times.
> Yes, that's correct. But then you can try to offline the memory upfront
> and only remove the container after that has been successful.
>> 2. cannot work with userland's application
>> Hot removing CPU and memory on container device, we need take care of
>> userland application. Before linux-3.12, container device just notifies
>> KOBJ_OFFLINE to udev. So by using udev, if application binds to removed
>> CPU or node, applications can change them before hot removing container
>> device.
>> Currently, KOBJ_OFFLINE is notified to udev. But acpi_scan_hot_remove
>> also runs simultaneously for hot removing container device. So when
>> applications runs for corresponding to the deletion of the devices,
>> the devices may have been deleted.

> So the expectation is that the container will refuse to offline, but instead
> it will emit KOBJ_OFFLINE so that user space can do some cleanup and offline
> it through the "eject" attribute, right?

Yes, that's right.

>> I don't know what devices are on hotpluggable conatainer device of other
>> vendors. At least, my container device cannot be hot removed correctly.
>> Then I want to add autoeject variable in acpi_hotplug_profile so that user
>> can change the parameter to "true" or "false".
> I have a different idea.
> Why don't we create a bus type for containers in analogy with CPUs and memory
> and make it support offline. Then, the container scan handler will create a
> "physical" container device under that bus type and the new bus type code will
> implement the logic you need (that is, it will have a sysfs flag that will
> cause the offline to fail emitting a uevent of some sort if set and will allow
> the offline to happen when unset). That "physical" container device will go
> away (again, via the container scan handler) during container removal.

> The eject work flow can be:
> (1) an eject event occurs,
> (2) the container "physical" device fails offline in acpi_scan_hot_remove()
> emmitting, say, KOBJ_CHANGE for the "physical" device,
> (3) user space notices the KOBJ_CHANGE and does the cleanup as needed,
> (4) user space changes the "physical" container device flag controlling
> offline to 0,
> (5) user space uses the sysfs "eject" attribute of the ACPI container object
> to finally eject the container,
> (6) the offline in acpi_scan_hot_remove() is now successful, because the
> flag controlling it has been set to 0 in step (4),
> (7) the "physical" container device goes away before executing _EJ0,
> (8) the container is ejected.
> Of course, if the flag controlling container offline is 0 to start with, step
> (6) will now occur directly after (1), so whoever wants containers to be
> hot-removed automatically may just clear that flag for all of them on boot.
> How does that sound?

The above ideas are almost O.K. I want kernel to notify user space of KOBJ_OFFLINE.
Even if user space catches "KOBJ_CHANGE", user doesn't know whether the notification
is offline or not.

Yasuaki Ishimatsu

> Rafael
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to
> More majordomo info at

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-03 04:21    [W:0.082 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site