From: Martin Mares <mj@ucw.cz>
To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI device list locking
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 12:07:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-linux-hotplug-101576344519407@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-linux-hotplug-101528672932410@msgid-missing>
Hello!
When I was actively maintaining the PCI subsystem, I was becoming increasingly
unhappy about the lack of locking, but I was unable to find any simple
strategy which wouldn't require rewriting of many drivers.
Lots of drivers still use the old probing interface (pci_find_*). Possible
solutions: either add locking around probing loop in all drivers or (maybe
better) convert all drivers to the new interface and drop the old one
completely.
> Unless I missed something even a semaphore might deadlock then:
>
> think of a pci driver for bridge-type device which has devices already
> attached when probed - for example cardbus (or hotplug) controller with
> device on the downside. If the devices are found during probe(), the
> driver might want to just add them in one go.
Device addition is not a hard problem, it just suffices to define the locking
rules a bit better to avoid deadlock. Removal is much worse -- you need to
ensure not only nobody is working with the list, but also that nobody is
using the pci_dev being removed.
Maybe we could do it this way: (assuming all drivers use the new interface)
o Introduce a global semaphore guarding all PCI lists (the global
device list and all per-bus linkages). Add pci_{un,}lock_lists().
[Using any r/w-thing is probably pointless as both reads and writes
to the list are very rare.]
o Make pci_for_each_dev call pci_{un,}lock_lists().
o Define that for calling pci_{insert,remove}_device() the lists
must be locked by the caller.
o Define that if you want to access any pci_dev, you must either have
the lists locked or be the owner of the device (pci_dev->driver).
o Define that when you are walking the list by pci_for_each_dev(),
you can remove any device except the current one.
Unless I've missed anything, these rules seem to cover all the cases
needed including probe/remove functions adding/removing devices on the
downside of a bridge.
Have a nice fortnight
--
Martin `MJ' Mares <mj@ucw.cz> http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mj/
Faculty of Math and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Rep., Earth
For every complex problem, there's a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-03-10 12:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-03-04 23:54 [PATCH] PCI device list locking john stultz
2002-03-05 0:17 ` Greg KH
2002-03-05 1:05 ` john stultz
2002-03-05 1:12 ` Craig Christophel
2002-03-05 1:47 ` john stultz
2002-03-06 1:31 ` Martin Diehl
2002-03-10 12:07 ` Martin Mares [this message]
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=marc-linux-hotplug-101576344519407@msgid-missing \
--to=mj@ucw.cz \
--cc=linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).