public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 08:50:40 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110705155040.GB16682@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201107051721.02079.arnd@arndb.de>

On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 05:21:01PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 July 2011, Greg KH wrote:
> > So the driver core is just going to sit and spin and continue to try to
> > probe drivers for as long as it gets that error value returned?  What is
> > going to ever cause that loop to terminate?  It seems a bit hacky to
> > just keep looping over and over and hoping that sometime everything will
> > all settle down so that we can go to sleep again.
> 
> Well, it only needs to try as long as there are still new devices
> succeeding to get probed. The order that I think this should happen
> in is:
> 
> * go through all initcalls, record any devices that are not yet ready
> * retry all devices on the list as long as at least one of them has
>   succeeded.
> * when a new device gets matched from a module load, do that loop again

You don't know when init calls are finished, or if a module is loaded,
the driver core isn't that smart at all.

> If I read the patch correctly, the workqueue would be scheduled
> every time a new device gets added, which retries the devices
> more often than necessary and can have significant boot time
> impact, and it also introduces more asynchronicity that may expose
> new bugs.
> 
> Maybe we can have a late_initcall that enables the automatic retry
> and probes everything once:
> 
> static bool deferred_probe;
> static int __init deferred_probe_start(void)
> {
> 	deferred_probe = true;
> 	mutex_lock(&deferred_probe_mutex);
> 	if (!list_empty(&deferred_probe_list))
> 		schedule_work(&deferred_probe_work);
> 	mutex_unlock(&deferred_probe_mutex);
> 	flush_work_sync(&deferred_probe_work);
> }
> late_initcall(retry_devices);

I wonder if doing this all from a workqueue in the first place is going
to cause problems as probe isn't normally done this way at all.

greg k-h

  reply	other threads:[~2011-07-05 15:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-07-04 17:11 [PATCH] drivercore: Add driver probe deferral mechanism Grant Likely
2011-07-04 17:41 ` Greg KH
2011-07-04 17:56   ` Mark Brown
2011-07-04 18:01   ` Grant Likely
2011-07-05 14:21     ` Greg KH
2011-07-05 15:21       ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-07-05 15:50         ` Greg KH [this message]
2011-07-05 16:05           ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-07-05 16:27             ` Grant Likely
2011-07-05 16:11           ` Kay Sievers
2011-07-05 16:28             ` Grant Likely
2011-07-05 16:36               ` Greg KH
2011-07-05 17:17                 ` Grant Likely
2011-07-05 17:29                   ` Greg KH
2011-07-05 17:35                     ` Grant Likely
2011-07-10 14:24               ` Kay Sievers
2011-07-05 16:33             ` Grant Likely
2011-07-05 16:05       ` Grant Likely
2011-07-04 19:56 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-07-04 20:47 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-04 23:25   ` Grant Likely
2011-07-05  6:11     ` Mark Brown
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-03-05 15:47 Grant Likely
2012-03-05 17:38 ` Alan Cox
2012-03-05 17:40 ` David Daney
2012-03-05 17:50 ` Mark Brown
2012-03-05 19:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-03-05 21:10   ` Grant Likely
2012-03-05 21:24     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-03-05 21:28       ` Mark Brown
2012-03-06  9:10     ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-03-05 21:47 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-03-05 22:09   ` Grant Likely
2012-03-05 22:15     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-03-06  0:08       ` Grant Likely
2012-03-06  5:28         ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2012-03-06  7:52           ` Grant Likely
2012-03-08 20:22 ` Greg KH

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=20110705155040.GB16682@suse.de \
    --to=gregkh@suse.de \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
    --cc=kay.sievers@vrfy.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
    /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