From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
To: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com>,
Qing Huang <qing.huang@oracle.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] device probe: add self triggered delayed work request
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 00:16:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57A9833D.4080405@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <03e6a023-258b-9bbd-3c20-89b51b987ff3@oracle.com>
On 08/08/16 18:15, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>
>
> On 8/8/2016 6:11 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 08/08/16 14:51, Qing Huang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/08/2016 01:44 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>> On 07/29/16 22:39, Qing Huang wrote:
>>>>> In normal condition, the device probe requests kept in deferred
>>>>> queue would only be triggered for re-probing when another new device
>>>>> probe is finished successfully. This change will set up a delayed
>>>>> trigger work request if the current deferred probe being added is
>>>>> the only one in the queue. This delayed work request will try to
>>>>> reactivate any device from the deferred queue for re-probing later.
>>>>>
>>>>> By doing this, if the last device being probed in system boot process
>>>>> has a deferred probe error, this particular device will still be able
>>>>> to be probed again.
>>>> I am trying to understand the use case.
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain the scenario you are trying to fix? If I understand
>>>> correctly, you expect that something will change such that a later
>>>> probe attempt will succeed. How will that change occur and why
>>>> will the deferred probe list not be processed in this case?
>>>>
>>>> Why are you conditioning this on the deferred_probe_pending_list
>>>> being empty?
>>>>
>>>> -Frank
>>>
>>> It turns out one corner case which we worried about has already been
>>> solved in the really_probe() function by comparing
>>> 'deferred_trigger_count' values.
>>>
>>> Another use case we are investigating now: when we probe a device,
>>> the main thread returns EPROBE_DEFER from the driver after we spawn a
>>> child thread to do the actual init work. So we can initialize
>>> multiple similar devices at the same time. After the child thread
>>> finishes its task, we can call driver_deferred_probe_trigger()
>>> directly from child thread to re-probe the
>>> device(driver_deferred_probe_trigger() has to be exported though). Or
>>> we could rely on something in this patch to re-probe the deferred
>>> devices from the pending list...
>>> What do you suggest?
>>
>> See commit 735a7ffb739b6efeaeb1e720306ba308eaaeb20e for how multi-threaded
>> probes were intended to be handled. I don't know if this approach is used
>> much or even usable, but that is the framework that was created.
>>
> That infrastructure got removed as part of below commit :-(
>
> commit 5adc55da4a7758021bcc374904b0f8b076508a11
> Author: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> Date: Tue Mar 27 03:02:51 2007 +0200
>
> PCI: remove the broken PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE option
>
> This patch removes the PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE option that had already
> been marked as broken.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Hmmmm. :-( indeed.
The *_initcall_sync defines are still there, but yep, the wait_for_probes()
part is gone. Thanks for the info about the partial removal.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-09 7:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-30 5:39 [PATCH] device probe: add self triggered delayed work request Qing Huang
2016-08-08 20:44 ` Frank Rowand
2016-08-08 21:51 ` Qing Huang
2016-08-09 1:11 ` Frank Rowand
2016-08-09 1:15 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2016-08-09 7:16 ` Frank Rowand [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-08-08 10:42 Shamir Rabinovitch
2016-08-09 0:10 ` Qing Huang
2016-08-09 10:11 ` Shamir Rabinovitch
2016-08-09 20:57 ` Qing Huang
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=57A9833D.4080405@gmail.com \
--to=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qing.huang@oracle.com \
--cc=santosh.shilimkar@oracle.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.