From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752747AbYIDQLn (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:11:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754711AbYIDQLb (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:11:31 -0400 Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:57634 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754491AbYIDQLa (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:11:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 10:10:51 -0600 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Ben Hutchings Cc: Stephen Hemminger , Jesse Barnes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] pci: VPD access timeout increase Message-ID: <20080904161051.GL2772@parisc-linux.org> References: <20080827204626.4b65862f@extreme> <20080828111323.GI7908@solarflare.com> <20080903155713.7fab2e19@extreme> <20080904125219.GJ2772@parisc-linux.org> <20080904141944.GE7908@solarflare.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080904141944.GE7908@solarflare.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:19:46PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 03:57:13PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > Accessing the VPD area can take a long time. There are comments in the > > > SysKonnect vendor driver that it can take up to 25ms. The existing vpd > > > access code fails consistently on my hardware. > > > > Wow, that's slow. If you were to try to read all 32k, it'd take more > > than three minutes! (I presume it doesn't actually have as much as 32k). > > > > > Change the access routines to: > > > * use a mutex rather than spinning with IRQ's disabled and lock held > > > * have a longer timeout > > > * call schedule while spinning to provide some responsivness > > > > I agree with your approach, but have one minor comment: > > > > > - spin_lock_irq(&vpd->lock); > > > + mutex_lock(&vpd->lock); > > > > This should be: > > > > + if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&vpd->lock)) > > + return -EINTR; > [...] > > This is fine for the sysfs case, but not if this is called during device > probe - we don't want signals to modprobe to break device initialisation, > do we? Probably only fatal signals -- in which case the if (signal_pending) check should be a fatal_signal_pending() and mutex_lock_interruptible() should be mutex_lock_killable(). OTOH, who's signalling modprobe to do anything other than die? -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."