[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1351797478.19172.103.camel@misato.fc.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 13:17:58 -0600
From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: ZhangRui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, bhelgaas@...gle.com,
jiang.liu@...wei.com, izumi.taku@...fujitsu.com,
isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Improve container_notify_cb() to support
container hot-remove.
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 11:28 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com> wrote:
> >
> > Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that
> > acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules. Looks like
> > you have the same problem here. FYI, I just sent the following patch
> > that exports acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() and acpi_os_hotplug_execute().
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/1/225
>
> acpi_os_hotplug_execute() does not like having good quality yet.
>
> c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 941) /*
> c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 942) * We
> can't run hotplug code in keventd_wq/kacpid_wq/kacpid_notify_wq
> c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 943) *
> because the hotplug code may call driver .remove() functions,
> c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 944) *
> which invoke flush_scheduled_work/acpi_os_wait_events_complete
> c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 945) * to
> flush these workqueues.
> c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 946) */
> c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 947) queue
> = hp ? kacpi_hotplug_wq :
> c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 948)
> (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq);
> 9ac61856 (Bjorn Helgaas 2009-08-31 22:32:10 +0000 949)
> dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0;
> bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 950)
> bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 951) if
> (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq)
> bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 952)
> INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred);
> bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 953) else
> if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq)
> bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 954)
> INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred);
> bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 955) else
> bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 956)
> INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred);
> bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 957)
>
> really don't know why checking queue and call same code in every branch.
>
> from comm:
>
> commit bc73675b99fd9850dd914be01d71af99c5d2a1ae
> Author: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> Date: Mon Mar 22 15:48:54 2010 +0800
>
> ACPI: fixes a false alarm from lockdep
>
> fixes a false alarm from lockdep, as acpi hotplug workqueue waits other
> workqueues.
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14553
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15521
>
> Original-patch-from: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/osl.c b/drivers/acpi/osl.c
> index 8e6d866..900da68 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/osl.c
> @@ -758,7 +758,14 @@ static acpi_status
> __acpi_os_execute(acpi_execute_type type,
> queue = hp ? kacpi_hotplug_wq :
> (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq);
> dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0;
> - INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred);
> +
> + if (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq)
> + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred);
> + else if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq)
> + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred);
> + else
> + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred);
> +
> ret = queue_work(queue, &dpc->work);
>
> if (!ret) {
>
>
> Len or Rafael,
> can you just revert that silly patch?
Hi Yinghai,
Per the following thread, the code seems to be written in this way to
allocate a separate lock_class_key for each work queue. It should have
had some comment to explain this, though.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/13/304
Thanks,
-Toshi
>
> Yinghai
--
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