On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 00:40 +0800, Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 08:10 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 12:25 +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> On 2012/11/30 6:27, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 12:48 +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>>> On 2012/11/29 2:41, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 19:05 +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2012/11/24 1:50, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
> >>>>>> As you may know, the ACPI based hotplug framework we are working on already addressed
> >>>>>> this problem, and the way we slove this problem is a bit like yours.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We introduce hp_ops in struct acpi_device_ops:
> >>>>>> struct acpi_device_ops {
> >>>>>> acpi_op_add add;
> >>>>>> acpi_op_remove remove;
> >>>>>> acpi_op_start start;
> >>>>>> acpi_op_bind bind;
> >>>>>> acpi_op_unbind unbind;
> >>>>>> acpi_op_notify notify;
> >>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG
> >>>>>> struct acpihp_dev_ops *hp_ops;
> >>>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG */
> >>>>>> };
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> in hp_ops, we divide the prepare_remove into six small steps, that is:
> >>>>>> 1) pre_release(): optional step to mark device going to be removed/busy
> >>>>>> 2) release(): reclaim device from running system
> >>>>>> 3) post_release(): rollback if cancelled by user or error happened
> >>>>>> 4) pre_unconfigure(): optional step to solve possible dependency issue
> >>>>>> 5) unconfigure(): remove devices from running system
> >>>>>> 6) post_unconfigure(): free resources used by devices
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In this way, we can easily rollback if error happens.
> >>>>>> How do you think of this solution, any suggestion ? I think we can achieve
> >>>>>> a better way for sharing ideas. :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, sharing idea is good. :) I do not know if we need all 6 steps (I
> >>>>> have not looked at all your changes yet..), but in my mind, a hot-plug
> >>>>> operation should be composed with the following 3 phases.
> >>>>
> >>>> Good idea ! we also implement a hot-plug operation in 3 phases:
> >>>> 1) acpihp_drv_pre_execute
> >>>> 2) acpihp_drv_execute
> >>>> 3) acpihp_drv_post_execute
> >>>> you may refer to :
> >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/4/79
> >>>
> >>> Great. Yes, I will take a look.
> >>
> >> Thanks, any comments are welcomed :)
> >
> > If I read the code right, the framework calls ACPI drivers differently
> > at boot-time and hot-add as follows. That is, the new entry points are
> > called at hot-add only, but .add() is called at both cases. This
> > requires .add() to work differently.
> >
> > Boot : .add()
> > Hot-Add : .add(), .pre_configure(), configure(), etc.
> >
> > I think the boot-time and hot-add initialization should be done
> > consistently. While there is difficulty with the current boot sequence,
> > the framework should be designed to allow them consistent, not make them
> > diverged.
> Hi Toshi,
> We have separated hotplug operations from driver binding/unbinding interface
> due to following considerations.
> 1) Physical CPU and memory devices are initialized/used before the ACPI subsystem
> is initialized. So under normal case, .add() of processor and acpi_memhotplug only
> figures out information about device already in working state instead of starting
> the device.
I agree that the current boot sequence is not very hot-plug friendly...
> 2) It's impossible to rmmod the processor and acpi_memhotplug driver at runtime
> if .remove() of CPU and memory drivers do really remove the CPU/memory device
> from the system. And the ACPI processor driver also implements CPU PM funcitonality
> other than hotplug.
Agreed.
> And recently Rafael has mentioned that he has a long term view to get rid of the
> concept of "ACPI device". If that happens, we could easily move the hotplug
> logic from ACPI device drivers into the hotplug framework if the hotplug logic
> is separated from the .add()/.remove() callbacks. Actually we could even move all
> hotplug only logic into the hotplug framework and don't rely on any ACPI device
> driver any more. So we could get rid of all these messy things. We could achieve
> that by:
> 1) moving code shared by ACPI device drivers and the hotplug framework into the core.
> 2) moving hotplug only code to the framework.
Yes, the framework should allow such future work. I also think that the
framework itself should be independent from such ACPI issue. Ideally,
it should be able to support non-ACPI platforms.
> Hi Rafael, what's your thoughts here?
>
> >
> >>>>> 1. Validate phase - Verify if the request is a supported operation. All
> >>>>> known restrictions are verified at this phase. For instance, if a
> >>>>> hot-remove request involves kernel memory, it is failed in this phase.
> >>>>> Since this phase makes no change, no rollback is necessary to fail.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, we have done this in acpihp_drv_pre_execute, and check following things:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Hot-plugble or not. the instance kernel memory you mentioned is also checked
> >>>> when memory device remove;
> >>>
> >>> Agreed.
> >>>
> >>>> 2) Dependency check involved. For instance, if hot-add a memory device,
> >>>> processor should be added first, otherwise it's not valid to this operation.
> >>>
> >>> I think FW should be the one that assures such dependency. That is,
> >>> when a memory device object is marked as present/enabled/functioning, it
> >>> should be ready for the OS to use.
> >>
> >> Yes, BIOS should do something for the dependency, because BIOS knows the
> >> actual hardware topology.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> >> The ACPI specification provides _EDL method to
> >> tell OS the eject device list, but still has no method to tell OS the add device
> >> list now.
> >
> > Yes, but I do not think the OS needs special handling for add...
> We have a plan to support triggering hot-adding events from OS provided interfaces,
> so we also need to solve dependency issues when handling requests from those interfaces.
> For need to power on the physical processor before powering on a memory device if
> the memory device is attached to a physical processor.
I am afraid that this issue is platform-specific, and I am not sure if
there is a common way to handle such things in general. I'd recommend
to work with FW folks to implement such platform-specific validation
code in FW.
> >> For some cases, OS should analyze the dependency in the validate phase. For example,
> >> when hot remove a node (container device), OS should analyze the dependency to get
> >> the remove order as following:
> >> 1) Host bridge;
> >> 2) Memory devices;
> >> 3) Processor devices;
> >> 4) Container device itself;
> >
> > This may be off-topic, but how do you plan to delete I/O devices under a
> > node? Are you planning to delete all I/O devices along with the node?
> >
> > On other OS, we made a separate step called I/O chassis delete, which
> > off-lines all I/O devices under the node, and is required before a node
> > hot-remove. It basically triggers PCIe hot-remove to detach drivers
> > from all devices. It does not eject the devices so that they do not
> > have to be on hot-plug slots. This step runs user-space scripts to
> > verify if the devices can be off-lined without disrupting user's
> > applications, and provides comprehensive reports if any of them are in
> > use. Not sure if Linux's PCI hot-remove has such check, but I thought
> > I'd mention it. :)
> Yinghai is working on PCI host bridge hotplug, which just stops all PCI devices
> under the host bridge. That's really a little dangerous and we do need help
> from userspace to check whether the hot-removal operaitons is fatal,
> e.g. removing PCI device hosting the rootfs.
Agreed.
> So in our framework, we have an option to relay hotplug event from firmware
> to userspace, so the userspace has a chance to reject the hotplug operations
> if it may cause unacceptable disturbance to userspace services.
I think validation from user-space is necessary for deleting I/O
devices. For CPU and memory, the kernel check works fine.
Thanks,
-Toshi
--
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>