From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
To: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
hpa@linux.intel.com, jim.cromie@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
arnd@arndb.de, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com,
Patch Tracking <patches@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: add wait event for deferred probe
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:36:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130213213624.079BA3E3557@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD6h2NRGiD=hDOjF8CBDrKuBZm-ALOdcj8mT=h6Cde4PuU=AHw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:52:10 +0800, Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 12 February 2013 07:10, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 00:57:57 +0800
> > Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >> do_initcalls() could call all driver initialization code in kernel_init
> >> thread. It means that probe() function will be also called from that
> >> time. After this, kernel could access console & release __init section
> >> in the same thread.
> >>
> >> But if device probe fails and moves into deferred probe list, a new
> >> thread is created to reinvoke probe. If the device is serial console,
> >> kernel has to open console failure & release __init section before
> >> reinvoking failure. Because there's no synchronization mechanism.
> >> Now add wait event to synchronize after do_initcalls().
> >
> > It sounds like this:
> >
> > static int __ref kernel_init(void *unused)
> > {
> > kernel_init_freeable();
> > /* need to finish all async __init code before freeing the memory */
> > async_synchronize_full();
> >
> > is designed to prevent the problem you describe?
> >
> It can't prevent the problem that I described. Because deferred_probe()
> is introduced recently.
>
> All synchronization should be finished just after do_initcalls(). Since
> load_default_modules() is also called in the end of kernel_init_freeable(),
> I'm not sure that whether I could remove async_synchronize_full()
> here. So I didn't touch it.
>
> >> --- a/init/main.c
> >> +++ b/init/main.c
> >> @@ -786,6 +786,7 @@ static void __init do_basic_setup(void)
> >> do_ctors();
> >> usermodehelper_enable();
> >> do_initcalls();
> >> + wait_for_device_probe();
> >> }
> >
> > Needs a nice comment here explaining what's going on.
>
> No problem. I'll add comment here.
Actually, this approach will create new problems. There is no guarantee
that a given device will be able to initialize before exiting
do_basic_setup(). If, for instance, a device depends on a resource
provided by a module, then it will just keep deferring. In that case
you've got a hung kernel.
I think what you really want is the following:
static int deferred_probe_initcall(void)
{
deferred_wq = create_singlethread_workqueue("deferwq");
if (WARN_ON(!deferred_wq))
return -ENOMEM;
driver_deferred_probe_enable = true;
+ deferred_probe_work_func(NULL);
- driver_deferred_probe_trigger();
return 0;
}
late_initcall(deferred_probe_initcall);
Or something similar. That would guarantee that as many passes as are needed
(which in practical terms only means a couple) for device probing to
settle down before exiting the initcall processing. That should achieve
the effect you desire.
It still masks the __init section issue by making it a lot less likely,
but it does ensure that all of the built-in driver dependency order
issues are processed before continuing on to userspace.
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc, P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies, Ltd.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-13 21:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-09 16:57 [PATCH] driver core: add wait event for deferred probe Haojian Zhuang
2013-02-11 23:10 ` Andrew Morton
2013-02-12 2:52 ` Haojian Zhuang
2013-02-13 21:36 ` Grant Likely [this message]
2013-02-14 3:27 ` anish singh
2013-02-14 9:56 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-02-14 10:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-02-14 11:08 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-02-14 16:33 ` Grant Likely
2013-02-14 17:42 ` anish kumar
2013-02-14 15:52 ` Haojian Zhuang
2013-02-14 15:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-02-14 16:04 ` Haojian Zhuang
2013-02-14 16:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-02-14 16:58 ` Haojian Zhuang
2013-02-14 17:54 ` Grant Likely
2013-02-14 17:42 ` Grant Likely
2013-02-14 17:38 ` Grant Likely
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=20130213213624.079BA3E3557@localhost \
--to=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=haojian.zhuang@linaro.org \
--cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jim.cromie@gmail.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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