lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 01/47] kernel: Add support for poweroff handler call chain
On 10/20/2014 11:46 PM, Philippe Rétornaz wrote:
> Hello
>
> [...]
>> - Use raw notifiers protected by spinlocks instead of atomic notifiers
> [...]
>
>> +/**
>> + * do_kernel_power_off - Execute kernel poweroff handler call chain
>> + *
>> + * Calls functions registered with register_power_off_handler.
>> + *
>> + * Expected to be called from machine_power_off as last step of
>> + * the poweroff sequence.
>> + *
>> + * Powers off the system immediately if a poweroff handler function
>> + * has been registered. Otherwise does nothing.
>> + */
>> +void do_kernel_power_off(void)
>> +{
>> + spin_lock(&power_off_handler_lock);
>> + raw_notifier_call_chain(&power_off_handler_list, 0, NULL);
>> + spin_unlock(&power_off_handler_lock);
>> +}
>
> I don't get it. You are still in atomic context inside the poweroff callback
> since you lock it with a spinlock.
>
> It does not change much from the atomic notifier which was doing exactly the
> same thing but with RCU:
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> ret = notifier_call_chain(&nh->head, val, v, nr_to_call, nr_calls);
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> Why not using the blocking_notifier_* family ?
> It will lock with a read-write semaphore under which you can sleep.
>
> For instance, twl4030_power_off will sleep, since it is doing I2C access.
> So you cannot call it in atomic context.
>

Learning something new all the time. I assumed that spin_lock (unlike
spin_lock_irqsafe) would not run in atomic context.

I did not want to use a sleeping lock because I am not sure if that
works for all architectures; some disable (local) interrupts before
calling the function (eg arm and arm64), and I don't want to change
that semantics.

I have another idea how to get there without changing the lock situation
while executing the call chain - just set a flag indicating that it is
running and execute it without lock. Would that work ?

Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-22 00:21    [W:0.202 / U:10.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site