lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 01/12] Add sys_hotplug.h for system device hotplug framework
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 11:12:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, February 01, 2013 08:23:12 AM Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:54:51PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > But, again, I'm going to ask why you aren't using the existing cpu /
> > > > > memory / bridge / node devices that we have in the kernel. Please use
> > > > > them, or give me a _really_ good reason why they will not work.
> > > >
> > > > We cannot use the existing system devices or ACPI devices here. During
> > > > hot-plug, ACPI handler sets this shp_device info, so that cpu and memory
> > > > handlers (drivers/cpu.c and mm/memory_hotplug.c) can obtain their target
> > > > device information in a platform-neutral way. During hot-add, we first
> > > > creates an ACPI device node (i.e. device under /sys/bus/acpi/devices),
> > > > but platform-neutral modules cannot use them as they are ACPI-specific.
> > >
> > > But suppose we're smart and have ACPI scan handlers that will create
> > > "physical" device nodes for those devices during the ACPI namespace scan.
> > > Then, the platform-neutral nodes will be able to bind to those "physical"
> > > nodes. Moreover, it should be possible to get a hierarchy of device objects
> > > this way that will reflect all of the dependencies we need to take into
> > > account during hot-add and hot-remove operations. That may not be what we
> > > have today, but I don't see any *fundamental* obstacles preventing us from
> > > using this approach.
> >
> > I would _much_ rather see that be the solution here as I think it is the
> > proper one.
> >
> > > This is already done for PCI host bridges and platform devices and I don't
> > > see why we can't do that for the other types of devices too.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > > The only missing piece I see is a way to handle the "eject" problem, i.e.
> > > when we try do eject a device at the top of a subtree and need to tear down
> > > the entire subtree below it, but if that's going to lead to a system crash,
> > > for example, we want to cancel the eject. It seems to me that we'll need some
> > > help from the driver core here.
> >
> > I say do what we always have done here, if the user asked us to tear
> > something down, let it happen as they are the ones that know best :)
> >
> > Seriously, I guess this gets back to the "fail disconnect" idea that the
> > ACPI developers keep harping on. I thought we already resolved this
> > properly by having them implement it in their bus code, no reason the
> > same thing couldn't happen here, right?
>
> Not really. :-) We haven't ever resolved that particular issue I'm afraid.

Ah, I didn't realize that.

> > I don't think the core needs to do anything special, but if so, I'll be glad
> > to review it.
>
> OK, so this is the use case. We have "eject" defined for something like
> a container with a number of CPU cores, PCI host bridge, and a memory
> controller under it. And a few pretty much arbitrary I/O devices as a bonus.
>
> Now, there's a button on the system case labeled as "Eject" and if that button
> is pressed, we're supposed to _try_ to eject all of those things at once. We
> are allowed to fail that request, though, if that's problematic for some
> reason, but we're supposed to let the BIOS know about that.
>
> Do you seriously think that if that button is pressed, we should just proceed
> with removing all that stuff no matter what? That'd be kind of like Russian
> roulette for whoever pressed that button, because s/he could only press it and
> wait for the system to either crash or not. Or maybe to crash a bit later
> because of some delayed stuff that would hit one of those devices that had just
> gone. Surely not a situation any admin of a high-availability system would
> like to be in. :-)
>
> Quite frankly, I have no idea how that can be addressed in a single bus type,
> let alone ACPI (which is not even a proper bus type, just something pretending
> to be one).

You don't have it as a single bus type, you have a controller somewhere,
off of the bus being destroyed, that handles sending remove events to
the device and tearing everything down. PCI does this from the very
beginning.

I know it's more complicated with these types of devices, and I think we
are getting closer to the correct solution, I just don't want to ever
see duplicate devices in the driver model for the same physical device.

thanks,

greg k-h


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-02 16:21    [W:2.108 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site