[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081114220842.482d56e5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:08:42 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
maciej.sosnowski@...el.com, hskinnemoen@...el.com,
g.liakhovetski@....de, nicolas.ferre@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] dmaengine: up-level reference counting to the
module level
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:34:32 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> Simply, if a client wants any dmaengine channel then prevent all dmaengine
> modules from being removed. Once the clients are done re-enable module
> removal.
>
> Why?, beyond reducing complication:
> 1/ Tracking reference counts per-transaction in an efficient manner, as
> is currently done, requires a complicated scheme to avoid cache-line
> bouncing effects.
> 2/ Per-transaction ref-counting gives the false impression that a
> dma-driver can be gracefully removed ahead of its user (net, md, or
> dma-slave)
> 3/ None of the in-tree dma-drivers talk to hot pluggable hardware, but
> if such an engine were built one day we still would not need to notify
> clients of remove events. The driver can simply return NULL to a
> ->prep() request, something that is much easier for a client to handle.
>
> ...
>
> +static struct module *dma_chan_to_owner(struct dma_chan *chan)
> +{
> + return chan->device->dev->driver->owner;
> +}
Has this all been tested with CONFIG_MODULES=n?
It looks like we have a lot of unneeded code if CONFIG_MODULES=n.
However that might not be a case which is worth bothering about.
> +/**
> + * balance_ref_count - catch up the channel reference count
> + */
> +static void balance_ref_count(struct dma_chan *chan)
Forgot to kerneldocument the argument.
> +{
> + struct module *owner = dma_chan_to_owner(chan);
> +
> + while (chan->client_count < dmaengine_ref_count) {
> + __module_get(owner);
> + chan->client_count++;
> + }
> +}
The locking for ->client_count is undocumented.
> +/**
> + * dma_chan_get - try to grab a dma channel's parent driver module
> + * @chan - channel to grab
> + */
> +static int dma_chan_get(struct dma_chan *chan)
> +{
> + int err = -ENODEV;
> + struct module *owner = dma_chan_to_owner(chan);
> +
> + if (chan->client_count) {
> + __module_get(owner);
> + err = 0;
> + } else if (try_module_get(owner))
> + err = 0;
I wonder if try_module_get() could be used in both cases (migt not make
sense to do so though).
> + if (err == 0)
> + chan->client_count++;
Locking for this?
> + /* allocate upon first client reference */
> + if (chan->client_count == 1 && err == 0) {
> + int desc = chan->device->device_alloc_chan_resources(chan, NULL);
> +
> + if (desc < 0) {
> + chan->client_count = 0;
> + module_put(owner);
> + err = -ENOMEM;
Shouldn't we just propagate the ->device_alloc_chan_resources() return value?
> + } else
> + balance_ref_count(chan);
> + }
> +
> + return err;
> +}
> +
> +static void dma_chan_put(struct dma_chan *chan)
> +{
> + if (!chan->client_count)
> + return; /* this channel failed alloc_chan_resources */
Or we had a bug ;)
> + chan->client_count--;
Undocumented locking..
>
> ...
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists