From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1761536Ab3BNRzA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:55:00 -0500
Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:39311 "EHLO
	mail-wg0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1758259Ab3BNRy6 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:54:58 -0500
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: add wait event for deferred probe
To: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
        hpa@linux.intel.com, Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com,
        Patch Tracking <patches@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6h2NTJ1DdJ4j=UxNqgYQ5T16OAJ1saK9BEaMo_5NduG4c_ng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1360429077-14616-1-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> <201302141557.18308.arnd@arndb.de> <CAD6h2NS_eR7zJjwAuBJPRrCb9=-4r=y-QJt7Lvg5U+yBf-e=kw@mail.gmail.com> <201302141650.21144.arnd@arndb.de> <CAD6h2NTJ1DdJ4j=UxNqgYQ5T16OAJ1saK9BEaMo_5NduG4c_ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:54:56 +0000
Message-Id: <20130214175456.729453E12FB@localhost>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:58:23 +0800, Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 15 February 2013 00:50, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 February 2013, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> >> On 14 February 2013 23:57, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >> > On Thursday 14 February 2013, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
> >> >> If you can change it into code in below, it could work. Otherwise, it
> >> >> always fails.
> >> >>         driver_deferred_probe_enable = true;
> >> >>         driver_deferred_probe_trigger();
> >> >> +      deferred_probe_work_func(NULL);
> >> >>         return 0;
> >> >>
> >> >> Because deferred_probe_work_func() depends on that deferred_probe is added
> >> >> into deferred_probe_active_list. If driver_deferred_probe_trigger() isn't called
> >> >> first, the deferred uart probe can't be added into active list. So even you call
> >> >> work_func at here, it doesn't help.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Would that not cause two instances of the work function to run at the same time?
> >> > That sounds like a source for a lot of problems.
> >> >
> >> >         Arnd
> >>
> >> Two instances of the work function? I'm sorry that I don't
> >> understanding your meaning.
> >> Could you help explain your question?
> >
> > I mean you end up calling the work function directly, while it gets run as part
> > of the work queue on a different CPU at the same time. I just noticed that
> > there is actually locking in place in deferred_probe_work_func that prevents
> > any actual bugs, but you are still adding extra overhead here.
> >
> > Maybe just add
> >
> >         flush_workqueue(deferred_wq);
> >
> > here?
> >
> >         Arnd
> 
> It's fine to me. Since both of them are flushing workqueue.
> 
> Tested-by: <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>

Hahaha. I just came to the same conclusion. I'll craft a proper patch
and send it off.

g.