On Friday, July 26, 2013 01:54:00 AM Zheng, Lv wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@xxxxxxx] > > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 5:29 AM > > > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 04:09:43 PM Lv Zheng wrote: > > > This patch adds reference couting for ACPI operation region handlers to fix > > > races caused by the ACPICA address space callback invocations. > > > > > > ACPICA address space callback invocation is not suitable for Linux > > > CONFIG_MODULE=y execution environment. > > > > Actually, can you please explain to me what *exactly* the problem is? > > OK. I'll add race explanations in the next revision. > > The problem is there is no "lock" held inside ACPICA for invoking operation > region handlers. > Thus races happens between the acpi_remove/install_address_space_handler and > the handler/setup callbacks. I see. Now you're trying to introduce something that would prevent those races from happening, right? > This is correct per ACPI specification. > As if there is interpreter locks held for invoking operation region handlers, > the timeout implemented inside the operation region handlers will make all > locking facilities (Acquire or Sleep,...) timed out. > Please refer to ACPI specification "5.5.2 Control Method Execution": > Interpretation of a Control Method is not preemptive, but it can block. When > a control method does block, OSPM can initiate or continue the execution of > a different control method. A control method can only assume that access to > global objects is exclusive for any period the control method does not block. > > So it is pretty much likely that ACPI IO transfers are locked inside the > operation region callback implementations. > Using locking facility to protect the callback invocation will risk dead locks. No. If you use a single global lock around all invocations of operation region handlers, it won't deadlock, but it will *serialize* things. This means that there won't be two handlers executing in parallel. That may or may not be bad depending on what those handlers actually do. Your concern seems to be that if one address space handler is buggy and it blocks indefinitely, executing it under such a lock would affect the other address space handlers and in my opinion this is a valid concern. So the idea seems to be to add wrappers around acpi_install_address_space_handler() and acpi_remove_address_space_handler (but I don't see where the latter is called after the change?), such that they will know when it is safe to unregister the handler. That is simple enough. However, I'm not sure it is needed in the context of IPMI. Your address space handler's context is NULL, so even it if is executed after acpi_remove_address_space_handler() has been called for it (or in parallel), it doesn't depend on anything passed by the caller, so I don't see why the issue can't be addressed by a proper synchronization between acpi_ipmi_exit() and acpi_ipmi_space_handler(). Clearly, acpi_ipmi_exit() should wait for all already running instances of acpi_ipmi_space_handler() to complete and all acpi_ipmi_space_handler() instances started after acpi_ipmi_exit() has been called must return immediately. I would imagine an algorithm like this: acpi_ipmi_exit() 1. Take "address space handler lock". 2. Set "unregistering address space handler" flag. 3. Check if "count of currently running handlers" is 0. If so, call acpi_remove_address_space_handler(), drop the lock (possibly clear the flag) and return. 4. Otherwise drop the lock and go to sleep in "address space handler wait queue". 5. When woken up, take "address space handler lock" and go to 3. acpi_ipmi_space_handler() 1. Take "address space handler lock". 2. Check "unregistering address space handler" flag. If set, drop the lock and return. 3. Increment "count of currently running handlers". 4. Drop the lock. 5. Do your work. 6. Take "address space handler lock". 7. Decrement "count of currently running handlers" and if 0, signal the tasks waiting on it to wake up. 8. Drop the lock. 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
