Date:	Mon, 8 Sep 2014 19:28:58 -0700
From:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
	Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Wu Zhangjin <falcon@...zu.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, hare@...e.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...onical.com>,
	Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.de>,
	Santosh Rastapur <santosh@...lsio.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
	Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@...rref.org>,
	Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@...gotech.com>,
	Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@...gotech.com>,
	Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...gotech.com>,
	Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@...gotech.com>,
	Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>,
	Hariprasad S <hariprasad@...lsio.com>,
	MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...gotech.com,
	Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/6] kthread: warn on kill signal if not OOM

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:38:34PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> OK then one only concern I would have with this is that the presence
>> of such a flag doesn't necessarily mean that all drivers on a system
>> have been tested for asynch probe yet. I'd feel much more comfortable
>
> Given that the behvaior change is from driver core and that device
> probing can happen post-loading anyway,

Ah but lets not forget Dmitry's requirement which is for in-kernel
drivers. We'd need to deal with both built-in and modules. Dmitry's
case is completely orthogonal to the systemd issue and is just needed
to help not stall boot but I see no reason to blend these two issues
into one requirement together.

> I don't think we need to worry
> about drivers breaking from probing made asynchronous to loading.  The
> problem is the expectation of the entity which initiated loading of
> the module.  If it's depending on device being probed synchronously
> but insmod returns before that, it can break things.  We probably
> should audit request_module() users and see which ones expect such
> behavior.

Sure. Based on a quick glance I see sloppy uses of this, this should
probably be fixed anyway.

>> if this global flag allowed say specific drivers that *did* have such
>> a bool enabled, for example. Then that would enable synchronous
>> behaviour for the kernel by default, require the flag for enabling the
>> new async feature but only for drivers that have been tested.
>
> If we're gonna do the global switch, I personally think the right
> approach is blacklisting instead of the other way around because each
> specific driver doesn't really have much to do with it and the
> exceptions are about specific use cases that we don't have a good way
> to identify them from module loading path.

OK sure... even if we did whitelist I'm afraid such a white list might
be subjective in terms of design to specific systems anyway... I
suppose the only real way to do it right is to push and strive towards
a full system whitelist and address the black list as you mention.

In terms of approach we would still need to decide on a path for how
to do asynch probing for both in-kernel drivers and modules, do we
want async_schedule(), or queue_work()? If async_schedule() do we want
to use a new domain or a new one shared for all drivers? Priority on
the schedular was one of my other concerns which we'd need to make
right to match existing load on drivers through finit_module() and
synchronous probe.

>> That also still would not technically solve the issue of the current
>> existence of the timeout, unless of course we wish to ask systemd to
>> only make the timeout take effect *iff* the global sysctl flag /
>> whatever was enabled.
>
> Userland could backport a fix to set the sysctl.  Given that we need
> both synchrnous and asynchronous behaviors, it's unlikely that we can
> come up with a solution which doesn't need cooperation from userland.

True and then the timeout would also have to be skipped for device
drivers that have the sync_probe flag set, so I guess we'd need to
expose that too. I'm not too sure if systemd is equipped to be happy
with no timeout on module loading based previous discussions [0] so
we'd need to ensure we're all in agreement there that such drivers
exist and we may need *something*, if at the very least a really long
fucking timeout (TM) for such drivers.

[0] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-August/021852.html

  Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists