Message-ID: <1398217832.2805.33.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 2/2] Use kernfs_break_active_protection() for
 device online store callbacks
From: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com,
        toshi.kani@hp.com
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:50:32 +0800
In-Reply-To: <24546121.zVbmBfcmRG@vostro.rjw.lan>
References: <1397461649.12943.1.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com>
	 <20140421224606.GE22730@htj.dyndns.org>
	 <1398137679.2805.28.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com>
	 <24546121.zVbmBfcmRG@vostro.rjw.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 12:11 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:34:39 AM Li Zhong wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 18:46 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:23:50PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> > > 
> > > Proper /** function comment would be nice.
> > 
> > Ok, will try to write some in next version.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > +struct kernfs_node *lock_device_hotplug_sysfs(struct device *dev,
> > > > +					       struct device_attribute *attr)
> > > 
> > > I can see why you did this but let's please not require the user of
> > > this function to see how the thing is working internally.  Let's
> > > return int and keep track of (or look up again) the kernfs_node
> > > internally.
> > 
> > Ok, it also makes the prototype of lock and unlock look more consistent
> > and comfortable. 
> > 
> > > 
> > > >  {
> > > ...
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * We assume device_hotplug_lock must be acquired before removing
> > > 
> > > Is this assumption true?  If so, can we add lockdep assertions in
> > > places to verify and enforce this?  If not, aren't we just feeling
> > > good when the reality is broken?
> > 
> > It seems not true ... I think there are devices that don't have the
> > online/offline concept, we just need to add it, remove it, like ethernet
> > cards. 
> 
> Well, I haven't been following this closely (I was travelling, sorry), but
> there certainly are devices without online/offline.  That currently is only
> present for CPUs, memory blocks and ACPI containers (if I remember correctly).
> 
> > 
> > Maybe we could change the comments above, like:
> > 	/* We assume device_hotplug_lock must be acquired before 
> > 	 * removing devices, which have online/offline sysfs knob, 
> > 	 * and some locks are needed to serialize the online/offline
> > 	 * callbacks and device removing. ...
> > ? 
> 
> Lockdep assertions would be better than this in my opinion.

This is talking about the lock required in the other process, the device
removing process, e.g. that in remove_memory() below. So I guess no
lockdep assertions needed here. Or I misunderstand your point? 

> > 
> > And we could add lockdep assertions in cpu and memory related code? e.g.
> > remove_memory(), unregister_cpu()
> > 
> > Currently, remove_memory() has comments for the function:
> > 
> >  * NOTE: The caller must call lock_device_hotplug() to serialize hotplug
> >  * and online/offline operations before this call, as required by
> >  * try_offline_node().
> >  */
> >     
> > maybe it could be removed with the lockdep assertion.
> 
> No, please don't remove it.  It is there to explain where the locking requirement
> comes from.

OK, I see. I think I'll just add lockdep assertions, and keep the
comments there. 

Thanks, Zhong

> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/