Hello, Rafael. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:45:46PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > I've thought about that a bit over the last several hours and I'm still > thinking that that patch is a bit overkill, because it will trigger the > restart_syscall() for all cases when device_hotplug_lock is locked, even > if they can't lead to any deadlocks. The only deadlockish situation is > when device *removal* is in progress when store_online(), for example, > is called. > > So to address that particular situation without adding too much overhead for > other cases, I've come up with the appended patch (untested for now). > > This is how it is supposed to work. > > There are three "lock levels" for device hotplug, "normal", "remove" > and "weak". The difference is related to how __lock_device_hotplug() > works. Namely, if device hotplug is currently locked, that function > will either block or return false, depending on the "current lock > level" and its argument (the "new lock level"). The rules here are > that false is returned immediately if the "current lock level" is > "remove" and the "new lock level" is "weak". The function blocks > for all other combinations of the two. I think this is going way too far and a massive overkill in terms of complexity, which is way more important than for doing some restart_syscall loops during some rare sysfs file access, which isn't gonna be that common anyway. Fancy locking always sucks. The root cause of the problem is file removal ref draining from sysfs side and a proper solution should be implemented there. Adding all this complexity to device hotplug lock won't solve problems involving other locks while obfuscating what's going on through all the complexity. Also, when sysfs is updated with a proper solution, a simpler workaround from device hotplug side would be far easier to convert to the new solution than this, which over time is likely to grow interesting uses. Let's *please* stick to something simple. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
