On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 06:15:42 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 18:02 -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 00:49 +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.
> > >
> > > I see two reasons for calling acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() for memory (correct
> > > me if I'm wrong): (1) from the memhotplug driver's notify handler and (2) from
> > > acpi_eject_store() which is exposed through sysfs.
> >
> > Yes, that is correct.
> >
> > > If we disabled exposing
> > > acpi_eject_store() for memory devices, then the only way would be from the
> > > notify handler. So I wonder if driver_unbind() shouldn't just uninstall the
> > > notify handler for memory (so that memory eject events are simply dropped on
> > > the floor after unbinding the driver)?
> >
> > If driver_unbind() happens before an eject request, we do not have a
> > problem. acpi_eject_store() fails if a driver is not bound to the
> > device. acpi_memory_device_notify() fails as well.
> >
> > The race condition Wen pointed out (see the top of this email) is that
> > driver_unbind() may come in while eject operation is in-progress. This
> > is why I mentioned the following in previous email.
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Forgot to mention. The 3rd option is what Greg said -- use the
> suppress_bind_attrs field. I think this is a good option to address
> this race condition for now. For a long term solution, we should have a
> better infrastructure in place to address such issue in general.
Well, in the meantime I've had a look at acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() and
friends and I think there's a way to address all of these problems
without big redesign (for now).
First, why don't we introduce an ACPI device flag (in the flags field of
struct acpi_device) called eject_forbidden or something like this such that:
(1) It will be clear by default.
(2) It may only be set by a driver's .add() routine if necessary.
(3) Once set, it may only be cleared by the driver's .remove() routine if
it's safe to physically remove the device after the .remove().
Then, after the .remove() (which must be successful) has returned, and the
flag is set, it will tell acpi_bus_remove() to return a specific error code
(such as -EBUSY or -EAGAIN). It doesn't matter if .remove() was called
earlier, because if it left the flag set, there's no way to clear it afterward
and acpi_bus_remove() will see it set anyway. I think the struct acpi_device
should be unregistered anyway if that error code is to be returned.
[By the way, do you know where we free the memory allocated for struct
acpi_device objects?]
Now if acpi_bus_trim() gets that error code from acpi_bus_remove(), it should
store it, but continue the trimming normally and finally it should return that
error code to acpi_bus_hot_remove_device().
Now, if acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() gets that error code, it should just
reverse the whole trimming (i.e. trigger acpi_bus_scan() from the device
we attempted to eject) and notify the firmware about the failure.
If we have that, then the memory hotplug driver would only need to set
flags.eject_forbidden in its .add() routine and make its .remove() routine
only clear that flag if it is safe to actually remove the memory.
Does this make sense to you?
[BTW, using _PS3 in acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() directly to power off the
device is a nonsense, because this method is not guaranteed to turn the power
off in the first place (it may just put the device into D3hot). If anything,
acpi_device_set_power() should be used for that, but even that is not
guaranteed to actually remove the power (power resources may be shared with
other devices, so in fact that operation should be done by acpi_bus_trim()
for each of the trimmed devices.]
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
