Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] acpi: Introduce prepare_remove device operation

[Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>]

On 2012/12/4 8:10, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 12:25 +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2012/11/30 6:27, Toshi Kani wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 12:48 +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> On 2012/11/29 2:41, Toshi Kani wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 19:05 +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>>>> On 2012/11/24 1:50, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
>>>>>> As you may know, the ACPI based hotplug framework we are working on already addressed
>>>>>> this problem, and the way we slove this problem is a bit like yours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We introduce hp_ops in struct acpi_device_ops:
>>>>>> struct acpi_device_ops {
>>>>>> 	acpi_op_add add;
>>>>>> 	acpi_op_remove remove;
>>>>>> 	acpi_op_start start;
>>>>>> 	acpi_op_bind bind;
>>>>>> 	acpi_op_unbind unbind;
>>>>>> 	acpi_op_notify notify;
>>>>>> #ifdef	CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG
>>>>>> 	struct acpihp_dev_ops *hp_ops;
>>>>>> #endif	/* CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG */
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> in hp_ops, we divide the prepare_remove into six small steps, that is:
>>>>>> 1) pre_release(): optional step to mark device going to be removed/busy
>>>>>> 2) release(): reclaim device from running system
>>>>>> 3) post_release(): rollback if cancelled by user or error happened
>>>>>> 4) pre_unconfigure(): optional step to solve possible dependency issue
>>>>>> 5) unconfigure(): remove devices from running system
>>>>>> 6) post_unconfigure(): free resources used by devices
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this way, we can easily rollback if error happens.
>>>>>> How do you think of this solution, any suggestion ? I think we can achieve
>>>>>> a better way for sharing ideas. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, sharing idea is good. :)  I do not know if we need all 6 steps (I
>>>>> have not looked at all your changes yet..), but in my mind, a hot-plug
>>>>> operation should be composed with the following 3 phases.
>>>>
>>>> Good idea ! we also implement a hot-plug operation in 3 phases:
>>>> 1) acpihp_drv_pre_execute
>>>> 2) acpihp_drv_execute
>>>> 3) acpihp_drv_post_execute
>>>> you may refer to :
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/4/79
>>>
>>> Great.  Yes, I will take a look.
>>
>> Thanks, any comments are welcomed :)
> 
> If I read the code right, the framework calls ACPI drivers differently
> at boot-time and hot-add as follows.  That is, the new entry points are
> called at hot-add only, but .add() is called at both cases.  This
> requires .add() to work differently.

Hi Toshi,
Thanks for your comments!

> 
> Boot    : .add()

Actually, at boot time: .add(), .start()

> Hot-Add : .add(), .pre_configure(), configure(), etc.

Yes, we did it as you said in the framework. We use .pre_configure(), configure(),
and post_configure() to instead of .start() for better error handling and recovery.

> 
> I think the boot-time and hot-add initialization should be done
> consistently.  While there is difficulty with the current boot sequence,
> the framework should be designed to allow them consistent, not make them
> diverged.
> 
>>>>> 1. Validate phase - Verify if the request is a supported operation.  All
>>>>> known restrictions are verified at this phase.  For instance, if a
>>>>> hot-remove request involves kernel memory, it is failed in this phase.
>>>>> Since this phase makes no change, no rollback is necessary to fail. 
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we have done this in acpihp_drv_pre_execute, and check following things:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Hot-plugble or not. the instance kernel memory you mentioned is also checked
>>>>    when memory device remove;
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> 2) Dependency check involved. For instance, if hot-add a memory device,
>>>>    processor should be added first, otherwise it's not valid to this operation.
>>>
>>> I think FW should be the one that assures such dependency.  That is,
>>> when a memory device object is marked as present/enabled/functioning, it
>>> should be ready for the OS to use.
>>
>> Yes, BIOS should do something for the dependency, because BIOS knows the
>> actual hardware topology. 
> 
> Right.
> 
>> The ACPI specification provides _EDL method to
>> tell OS the eject device list, but still has no method to tell OS the add device
>> list now.
> 
> Yes, but I do not think the OS needs special handling for add...

Hmm, how about trigger a hot add operation by OS ? we have eject interface for OS, but
have no add interface now, do you think this feature is useful? If it is, I think OS
should analyze the dependency first and tell the user.

> 
>> For some cases, OS should analyze the dependency in the validate phase. For example,
>> when hot remove a node (container device), OS should analyze the dependency to get
>> the remove order as following:
>> 1) Host bridge;
>> 2) Memory devices;
>> 3) Processor devices;
>> 4) Container device itself;
> 
> This may be off-topic, but how do you plan to delete I/O devices under a
> node?  Are you planning to delete all I/O devices along with the node?

Yes, we delete all I/O devices under the node. we delete I/O devices as
following steps:
1) Offline PCI devices;
2) Offline IOAPIC and IOMMU;
and offline I/O devices no matter in use or not.

> 
> On other OS, we made a separate step called I/O chassis delete, which
> off-lines all I/O devices under the node, and is required before a node
> hot-remove.  It basically triggers PCIe hot-remove to detach drivers
> from all devices.  It does not eject the devices so that they do not
> have to be on hot-plug slots.  This step runs user-space scripts to
> verify if the devices can be off-lined without disrupting user's
> applications, and provides comprehensive reports if any of them are in

Great! we also have a plan to implement this feature.

> use.  Not sure if Linux's PCI hot-remove has such check, but I thought
> I'd mention it. :)

Have no such check, I'm sure :)

> 
>> In this way, we can check that all the devices are hot-plugble or not under the
>> container device before execute phase, and further more, we can remove devices
>> in order to avoid some crash problems.
> 
> Yes, we should check if all the resources under the node can be
> off-lined at validate phase.  (note, all the devices do not have to have
> _EJ0 if that's what you meant by hot-pluggable.)

Yes, agreed. For node hotplug, no need for all the devices have _EJ0 method.

Thanks
 Hanjun

>  
>>>> 3) Race condition check. if the device and its dependent device is in hot-plug
>>>>    process, another request will be denied.
>>>
>>> I agree that hot-plug operation should be serialized.  I think another
>>> request should be either queued or denied based on the caller's intent
>>> (i.e. wait-ok or no-wait). 
>>>
>>>> No rollback is needed for the above checks.
>>>
>>> Great.
>>>
>>>>> 2. Execute phase - Perform hot-add / hot-remove operation that can be
>>>>> rolled-back in case of error or cancel.
>>>>
>>>> In this phase, we introduce a state machine for the hot-plugble device,
>>>> please refer to:
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/4/79
>>>>
>>>> I think we have the same idea for the major framework, but the ACPI based
>>>> hot-plug framework implement it differently in detail, right ?
>>>
>>> Yes, I am surprised with the similarity.  What I described is something
>>> we had implemented for other OS.  I am still studying how best we can
>>> improve the Linux hotplug code. :)
>>
>> Great! your experience is very appreciable for me. I think we can share ideas
>> to achieve a better solution for Linux hotplug code. :)
> 
> Sounds great.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Toshi
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> .
> 


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>