On Thursday, November 29, 2012 12:30:30 PM Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:03:05AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > 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() > > > > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > 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(). > > Side-note: In the pre_remove patches, acpi_bus_trim actually returns on the > first error from acpi_bus_remove (e.g. when memory offlining in pre_remove > fails). Trimming is not continued. > > Normally, acpi_bus_trim keeps trimming as you say, and always returns the last > error. Is this the desired behaviour that we want to keep for bus_trim? (This is > more a general question, not specific to the eject_forbidden suggestion) > > > > > 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. > > sounds like this rollback needs to be implemented in any solution we choose > to implement, correct? > > > > > 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. > > > > But when .remove op is called, we are already in the irreversible/error-free > removal (final removal step). Why so? What prevents us from doing a bus scan again and binding the driver again to the device? Is .remove() doing something to the firmware? Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>