On Monday, February 04, 2013 06:33:52 AM Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 03:21:22PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, February 04, 2013 04:48:10 AM Greg KH wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 09:44:39PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > Yes, but those are just remove events and we can only see how destructive they > > > > > were after the removal. The point is to be able to figure out whether or not > > > > > we *want* to do the removal in the first place. > > > > > > > > > > Say you have a computing node which signals a hardware problem in a processor > > > > > package (the container with CPU cores, memory, PCI host bridge etc.). You > > > > > may want to eject that package, but you don't want to kill the system this > > > > > way. So if the eject is doable, it is very much desirable to do it, but if it > > > > > is not doable, you'd rather shut the box down and do the replacement afterward. > > > > > That may be costly, however (maybe weeks of computations), so it should be > > > > > avoided if possible, but not at the expense of crashing the box if the eject > > > > > doesn't work out. > > > > > > > > It seems to me that we could handle that with the help of a new flag, say > > > > "no_eject", in struct device, a global mutex, and a function that will walk > > > > the given subtree of the device hierarchy and check if "no_eject" is set for > > > > any devices in there. Plus a global "no_eject" switch, perhaps. > > > > > > I think this will always be racy, or at worst, slow things down on > > > normal device operations as you will always be having to grab this flag > > > whenever you want to do something new. > > > > I don't see why this particular scheme should be racy, at least I don't see any > > obvious races in it (although I'm not that good at races detection in general, > > admittedly). > > > > Also, I don't expect that flag to be used for everything, just for things known > > to seriously break if forcible eject is done. That may be not precise enough, > > so that's a matter of defining its purpose more precisely. > > > > We can do something like that on the ACPI level (ie. introduce a no_eject flag > > in struct acpi_device and provide an iterface for the layers above ACPI to > > manipulate it) but then devices without ACPI namespace objects won't be > > covered. That may not be a big deal, though. > > > > So say dev is about to be used for something incompatible with ejecting, so to > > speak. Then, one would do platform_lock_eject(dev), which would check if dev > > has an ACPI handle and then take acpi_eject_lock (if so). The return value of > > platform_lock_eject(dev) would need to be checked to see if the device is not > > gone. If it returns success (0), one would do something to the device and > > call platform_no_eject(dev) and then platform_unlock_eject(dev). > > How does a device "know" it is doing something that is incompatible with > ejecting? That's a non-trivial task from what I can tell. I agree that this is complicated in general. But. There are devices known to have software "offline" and "online" operations such that after the "offline" the given device is guaranteed to be not used until "online". We have that for CPU cores, for example, and user space can do it via /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/online . So, why don't we make the "online" set the no_eject flag (under the lock as appropriate) and the "offline" clear it? And why don't we define such "online" and "offline" for all of the other "system" stuff, like memory, PCI host bridges etc. and make it behave analogously? Then, it is quite simple to say which devices should use the no_eject flag: devices that have "online" and "offline" exported to user space. And guess who's responsible for "offlining" all of those things before trying to eject them: user space is. From the kernel's point of view it is all clear. Hands clean. :-) Now, there's a different problem how to expose all of the relevant information to user space so that it knows what to "offline" for the specific eject operation to succeed, but that's kind of separate and worth addressing anyway. > What happens if a device wants to set that flag, right after it was told > to eject and the device was in the middle of being removed? How can you > "fail" the "I can't be removed me now, so don't" requirement that it now > has? This one is easy. :-) If platform_lock_eject() is called when an eject is under way, it will block on acpi_eject_lock until the eject is complete and if the device is gone as a result of the eject, it will return an error code. In turn, if an eject happens after platform_lock_eject(), it will block until platform_unlock_eject() and if platform_no_eject() is called in between the lock and unlock, it will notice the device with no_eject set and bail out. Quite obviously, it would be a bug to call platform_lock_eject() from within an eject code path. 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
