Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753724AbaDYMrR (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:47:17 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:18400 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753673AbaDYMrP (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:47:15 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,927,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="519693160" Message-ID: <535A594F.2010604@intel.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:47:11 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Organization: Intel Technology Poland Sp. z o. o., KRS 101882, ul. Slowackiego 173, 80-298 Gdansk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Li Zhong CC: Tejun Heo , LKML , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, toshi.kani@hp.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 2/2] Use kernfs_break_active_protection() for device online store callbacks References: <1397612500.13188.83.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com> <20140416151749.GE1257@htj.dyndns.org> <1397717444.4034.15.camel@ThinkPad-T5421> <20140417151728.GK15326@htj.dyndns.org> <1398072059.2755.41.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com> <1398072230.2755.43.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com> <20140421224606.GE22730@htj.dyndns.org> <1398137679.2805.28.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com> <20140422204455.GB3615@mtj.dyndns.org> <5356EB6D.3010102@intel.com> <20140423142346.GB4781@htj.dyndns.org> <5357E651.2040400@intel.com> <1398329996.2805.110.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com> <5358E12C.2050800@intel.com> <1398390415.2805.129.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1398390415.2805.129.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/25/2014 3:46 AM, Li Zhong wrote: > On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 12:02 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On 4/24/2014 10:59 AM, Li Zhong wrote: >>> On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 18:12 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> On 4/23/2014 4:23 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: >>>>> Hello, Rafael. >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:21:33AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>>> Can you please elaborate a bit? >>>>> Because it can get involved in larger locking dependency issues by >>>>> joining dependency graphs of two otherwise largely disjoint >>>>> subsystems. It has potential to create possible deadlocks which don't >>>>> need to exist. >>>> Well, I do my best not to add unnecessary locks if that's what you mean. >>>> >>>>>> It is there to protect hotplug operations involving multiple devices >>>>>> (in different subsystems) from racing with each other. Why exactly >>>>>> is it bad? >>>>> But why would different subsystems, say cpu and memory, use the same >>>>> lock? Wouldn't those subsystems already have proper locking inside >>>>> their own subsystems? >>>> That locking is not sufficient. >>>> >>>>> Why add this additional global lock across multiple subsystems? >>>> That basically is because of how eject works when it is triggered via ACPI. >>>> >>>> It is signaled for a device at the top of a subtree. It may be a >>>> container of some sort and the eject involves everything below that >>>> device in the ACPI namespace. That may involve multiple subsystem >>>> (CPUs, memory, PCI host bridge, etc.). >>>> >>>> We do that in two steps, offline (which can fail) and eject proper >>>> (which can't fail and makes all of the involved devices go away). All >>>> that has to be done in one go with respect to the sysfs-triggered >>>> offline/online and that's why the lock is there. >>> Thank you for the education. It's more clear to me now why we need this >>> lock. >>> >>> I still have some small questions about when this lock is needed: >>> >>> I could understand sysfs-triggered online is not acceptable when >>> removing devices in multiple subsystems. But maybe concurrent offline >>> and remove(with proper per subsystem locks) seems not harmful? >>> >>> And if we just want to remove some devices in a specific subsystem, e.g. >>> like writing /cpu/release, if it just wants to offline and remove some >>> cpus, then maybe we don't require the device_hotplug_lock to be taken? >> No and no. >> >> If the offline phase fails for any device in the subtree, we roll back >> the operation >> and online devices that have already been offlined by it. Also the ACPI >> hot-addition >> needs to acquire device_hotplug_lock so that it doesn't race with ejects >> and so >> that lock needs to be taken by sysfs-triggered offline too. > I can understand that hot-addition needs the device_hotplug lock, but > still not very clear about the offline. > > I guess your are describing following scenario: > > user A: (trying remove cpu 1 and memory 1-10) > > lock_device_hotplug > offline cpu with cpu locks -- successful > offline memories with memory locks -- failed, e.g. for memory8 > online cpu and memory with their locks > unlock_device_hotplug What about if all is successful and CPU1 is gone before device_hotplug_lock is released? > user B: (trying offline cpu 1) > > offline cpu with cpu locks > > But I don't see any problem for user B not taking the device_hotplug > lock. The result may be different for user B to take or not take the > lock. But I think it could be seen as concurrent online/offline for cpu1 > under cpu hotplug locks, which just depends on which is executed last? > > Or did I miss something here? Yes, you could do offline in parallel with user A without taking device_hotplug_lock, but the result may be surprising to user B then. With device _hotplug_lock user B will always see CPU1 off line (or gone) after his offline in this scenario, while without taking the lock user B may sometimes see CPU1 on line after his offline. I don't think that's a good thing. Rafael -- 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/