On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 02:40:09 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 22:40 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 02:02:48 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Consider the following case: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We hotremove the memory device by SCI and unbind it from the driver at the same time: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CPUa CPUb > > > > > > > > > > acpi_memory_device_notify() > > > > > > > > > > unbind it from the driver > > > > > > > > > > acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we make acpi_bus_remove() to fail if a given acpi_device is not > > > > > > > > > bound with a driver? If so, can we make the unbind operation to perform > > > > > > > > > unbind only? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > acpi_bus_remove_device could check if the driver is present, and return -ENODEV > > > > > > > > if it's not present (dev->driver == NULL). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there can still be a race between an eject and an unbind operation happening > > > > > > > > simultaneously. This seems like a general problem to me i.e. not specific to an > > > > > > > > acpi memory device. How do we ensure an eject does not race with a driver unbind > > > > > > > > for other acpi devices? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a per-device lock in acpi-core or device-core that can prevent this from > > > > > > > > happening? Driver core does a device_lock(dev) on all operations, but this is > > > > > > > > probably not grabbed on SCI-initiated acpi ejects. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since driver_unbind() calls device_lock(dev->parent) before calling > > > > > > > device_release_driver(), I am wondering if we can call > > > > > > > device_lock(dev->dev->parent) at the beginning of acpi_bus_remove() > > > > > > > (i.e. before calling pre_remove) and fails if dev->driver is NULL. The > > > > > > > parent lock is otherwise released after device_release_driver() is done. > > > > > > > > > > > > I would be careful. You may introduce some subtle locking-related issues > > > > > > this way. > > > > > > > > > > Right. This requires careful inspection and testing. As far as the > > > > > locking is concerned, I am not keen on using fine grained locking for > > > > > hot-plug. It is much simpler and solid if we serialize such operations. > > > > > > > > > > > Besides, there may be an alternative approach to all this. For example, > > > > > > what if we don't remove struct device objects on eject? The ACPI handles > > > > > > associated with them don't go away in that case after all, do they? > > > > > > > > > > Umm... Sorry, I am not getting your point. The issue is that we need > > > > > to be able to fail a request when memory range cannot be off-lined. > > > > > Otherwise, we end up ejecting online memory range. > > > > > > > > Yes, this is the major one. The minor issue, however, is a race condition > > > > between unbinding a driver from a device and removing the device if I > > > > understand it correctly. Which will go away automatically if the device is > > > > not removed in the first place. Or so I would think. :-) > > > > > > I see. I do not think whether or not the device is removed on eject > > > makes any difference here. The issue is that after driver_unbind() is > > > done, acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() no longer calls the ACPI memory > > > driver (hence, it cannot fail in prepare_remove), and goes ahead to call > > > _EJ0. If driver_unbind() did off-line the memory, this is OK. However, > > > it cannot off-line kernel memory ranges. So, we basically need to > > > either 1) serialize acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() and driver_unbind(), or > > > 2) make acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() to fail if driver_unbind() is run > > > during the operation. > > > > OK, I see the problem now. > > > > What exactly is triggering the driver_unbind() in this scenario? > > User can request driver_unbind() from sysfs as follows. I do not see > much reason why user has to do for memory, though. > > echo "PNP0C80:XX" > /sys/bus/acpi/drivers/acpi_memhotplug/unbind This is wrong. Even if we want to permit user space to forcibly unbind drivers from anything like this, we should at least check for some situations in which it is plain dangerous. Like in this case. So I think the above should fail unless we know that the driver won't be necessary to handle hot-removal of memory. Alternatively, this may actually try to carry out the hot-removal and only call driver_unbind() if that succeeds. Whichever is preferable, I'd say. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
