All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
	tiwai@suse.de, arjan@linux.intel.com, teg@jklm.no,
	rmilasan@suse.com, werner@suse.com, oleg@redhat.com,
	hare@suse.com, bpoirier@suse.de, santosh@chelsio.com,
	pmladek@suse.cz, dbueso@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>,
	Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@pierref.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@avagotech.com>,
	Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@avagotech.com>,
	Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@avagotech.com>,
	Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@avagotech.com>,
	Casey Leedom <leedom@che>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] driver-core: add preferred async probe option for built-in and modules
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:50:10 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141007175010.GH14081@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141007173404.GB31328@mtj.dyndns.org>

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:34:04PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:10:46AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 05:01:18PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > For in-kernel stuff, we already have a clear
> > > synchronization point where we already synchronize all async calls.
> > > Shouldn't we be flushing these async probes there too?
> > 
> > This seems to be addressing if what I meant by prepared, "ready", so let
> > me address this as I do think its important.
> > 
> > By async calls do you mean users of async_schedule()? I see it
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > also uses system_unbound_wq as well but I do not see anyone calling
> > flush_workqueue(system_unbound_wq) on the kernel. We do use
> > async_synchronize_full() on kernel_init() but that just waits.
> 
> But you can create a new workqueue and queue all the async probing
> work items there and flush the workqueue right after
> async_synchronize_full().

On second thought I would prefer to avoid this, I see this being good
to help with old userspace but other than that I don't see a requirement
for new userspace. Do you?

> ...
> > bus.enable_kern_async=1 would still also serve as a helper for the driver core
> > to figure out if it should use async probe then on modules if prefer_async_probe
> > was enabled. Let me know if you figure out a way to avoid it.
> 
> Why do we need the choice at all?  It always should, no?

I'm OK to live with that, in that case I see no point to bus.enable_kern_async=1
at all.

  Luis

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
	tiwai@suse.de, arjan@linux.intel.com, teg@jklm.no,
	rmilasan@suse.com, werner@suse.com, oleg@redhat.com,
	hare@suse.com, bpoirier@suse.de, santosh@chelsio.com,
	pmladek@suse.cz, dbueso@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>,
	Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@pierref.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@avagotech.com>,
	Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@avagotech.com>,
	Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@avagotech.com>,
	Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@avagotech.com>,
	Casey Leedom <leedom@chelsio.com>,
	Hariprasad S <hariprasad@chelsio.com>,
	MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@avagotech.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] driver-core: add preferred async probe option for built-in and modules
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:50:10 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141007175010.GH14081@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141007173404.GB31328@mtj.dyndns.org>

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:34:04PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:10:46AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 05:01:18PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > For in-kernel stuff, we already have a clear
> > > synchronization point where we already synchronize all async calls.
> > > Shouldn't we be flushing these async probes there too?
> > 
> > This seems to be addressing if what I meant by prepared, "ready", so let
> > me address this as I do think its important.
> > 
> > By async calls do you mean users of async_schedule()? I see it
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > also uses system_unbound_wq as well but I do not see anyone calling
> > flush_workqueue(system_unbound_wq) on the kernel. We do use
> > async_synchronize_full() on kernel_init() but that just waits.
> 
> But you can create a new workqueue and queue all the async probing
> work items there and flush the workqueue right after
> async_synchronize_full().

On second thought I would prefer to avoid this, I see this being good
to help with old userspace but other than that I don't see a requirement
for new userspace. Do you?

> ...
> > bus.enable_kern_async=1 would still also serve as a helper for the driver core
> > to figure out if it should use async probe then on modules if prefer_async_probe
> > was enabled. Let me know if you figure out a way to avoid it.
> 
> Why do we need the choice at all?  It always should, no?

I'm OK to live with that, in that case I see no point to bus.enable_kern_async=1
at all.

  Luis

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com,
	tiwai@suse.de, arjan@linux.intel.com, teg@jklm.no,
	rmilasan@suse.com, werner@suse.com, oleg@redhat.com,
	hare@suse.com, bpoirier@suse.de, santosh@chelsio.com,
	pmladek@suse.cz, dbueso@suse.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>,
	Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@pierref.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@avagotech.com>,
	Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@avagotech.com>,
	Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@avagotech.com>,
	Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@avagotech.com>,
	Casey Leedom <leedom@che
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] driver-core: add preferred async probe option for built-in and modules
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 19:50:10 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141007175010.GH14081@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141007173404.GB31328@mtj.dyndns.org>

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:34:04PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:10:46AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 05:01:18PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > For in-kernel stuff, we already have a clear
> > > synchronization point where we already synchronize all async calls.
> > > Shouldn't we be flushing these async probes there too?
> > 
> > This seems to be addressing if what I meant by prepared, "ready", so let
> > me address this as I do think its important.
> > 
> > By async calls do you mean users of async_schedule()? I see it
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > also uses system_unbound_wq as well but I do not see anyone calling
> > flush_workqueue(system_unbound_wq) on the kernel. We do use
> > async_synchronize_full() on kernel_init() but that just waits.
> 
> But you can create a new workqueue and queue all the async probing
> work items there and flush the workqueue right after
> async_synchronize_full().

On second thought I would prefer to avoid this, I see this being good
to help with old userspace but other than that I don't see a requirement
for new userspace. Do you?

> ...
> > bus.enable_kern_async=1 would still also serve as a helper for the driver core
> > to figure out if it should use async probe then on modules if prefer_async_probe
> > was enabled. Let me know if you figure out a way to avoid it.
> 
> Why do we need the choice at all?  It always should, no?

I'm OK to live with that, in that case I see no point to bus.enable_kern_async=1
at all.

  Luis

  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-07 17:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-03 21:44 [PATCH v2 0/7] driver-core: async probe support Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] taint: add TAINT_DEBUG for invasive debugging features Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-15  5:35   ` Rusty Russell
2014-10-20 20:37     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44 ` [Cocci] [PATCH v2 2/7] module: add extra argument for parse_params() callback Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-04 12:55   ` [Cocci] " SF Markus Elfring
2014-10-04 12:55     ` SF Markus Elfring
2014-10-06 20:38     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 20:38       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 21:06       ` SF Markus Elfring
2014-10-06 21:06         ` SF Markus Elfring
2014-10-06 22:15         ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 22:15           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-15  5:35   ` Rusty Russell
2014-10-15  5:35     ` Rusty Russell
2014-10-03 21:44 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] driver-core: enable drivers to opt-out of async probe Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] amd64_edac: enforce synchronous probe Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] driver-core: generalize freeing driver private member Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] driver-core: add driver module asynchronous probe support Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] driver-core: add preferred async probe option for built-in and modules Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-03 21:44   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 20:19   ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-06 20:19     ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-06 20:19     ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-06 20:36     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 20:36       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 20:36       ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 21:01       ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-06 21:01         ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-06 21:01         ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-06 23:10         ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 23:10           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 23:10           ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 17:34           ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-07 17:34             ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-07 17:34             ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-07 17:50             ` Luis R. Rodriguez [this message]
2014-10-07 17:50               ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 17:50               ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 17:55               ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-07 17:55                 ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-07 17:55                 ` Tejun Heo
2014-10-07 18:55                 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 18:55                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 18:55                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 19:07                   ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 19:07                     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-07 19:07                     ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-10-06 20:41   ` Dmitry Torokhov
2014-10-06 20:41     ` Dmitry Torokhov
2014-10-06 20:41     ` Dmitry Torokhov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20141007175010.GH14081@wotan.suse.de \
    --to=mcgrof@suse.com \
    --cc=abhijit.mahajan@avagotech.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=bpoirier@suse.de \
    --cc=dbueso@suse.com \
    --cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
    --cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hare@suse.com \
    --cc=joseph.salisbury@canonical.com \
    --cc=kay@vrfy.org \
    --cc=leedom@che \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mcgrof@do-not-panic.com \
    --cc=nagalakshmi.nandigama@avagotech.com \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
    --cc=pierre-fersing@pierref.org \
    --cc=pmladek@suse.cz \
    --cc=praveen.krishnamoorthy@avagotech.com \
    --cc=rmilasan@suse.com \
    --cc=santosh@chelsio.com \
    --cc=sreekanth.reddy@avagotech.com \
    --cc=teg@jklm.no \
    --cc=tim.gardner@canonical.com \
    --cc=tiwai@suse.de \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=werner@suse.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.