public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: joeyli <jlee@suse.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Subject: Re: A udev rule to serve the change event of ACPI container?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 17:29:21 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170724092921.GF3034@linux-l9pv.suse> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170724085702.GE25221@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:57:02AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 19-07-17 17:09:10, Joey Lee wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:05:25AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > The problem I have with this expectation is that userspace will never
> > > have a good atomic view of the whole container. So it can only try to
> > 
> > I agreed!
> > 
> > Even a userspace application can handle part of offline jobs. It's
> > still possible that other kernel/userland compenents are using the
> > resource in container.
> > 
> > > eject and then hope that nobody has onlined part of the container.
> > > If you emit offline event to the userspace the cleanup can be done and
> > > after the last component goes offline then the eject can be done
> > > atomically.
> > 
> > The thing that we didn't align is how does kernel maintains the flag
> > of ejection state on container.
> 
> Why it cannot be an attribute of the container? The flag would be set
> when the eject operation is requested and cleared when either the
> operation is successful (all parts offline and eject operation acked
> by the BIOS) or it is terminated.
>

For the success case, yes, we can clear the flag when the _EJ0 of container
is success. But for the fail case, we don't know when the operation is
terminated.
 
> [...]
> > Base on the above figure, if userspace didn't do anything or it
> > just performs part of offline jobs. Then the container's [eject]
> > state will be always _SET_ there, and kernel will always check
> > the the latest child offline state when any child be offlined
> > by userspace.
> 
> What is a problem about that? The eject is simply in progress until all
> is set. Or maybe I just misunderstood.
>

I agree, but it's only for success case. For fail case, kernel can not
wait forever. Can we?
 
> > 
> > On the other hand, for retry BIOS, we will apply the same
> > _eject_ flag approach on retry BIOS. If the OS performs
> > offline/ejection jobs too long then the retry BIOS is finally
> > time out. There doesn't have way for OS to aware the timeout.
> 
> Doesn't BIOS notify the OS that the eject has timed out?
> 

No, there doesn't have interface to notify OS for BIOS time out. 

Thanks a lot!
Joey Lee

  reply	other threads:[~2017-07-24  9:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-06-26  6:26 A udev rule to serve the change event of ACPI container? joeyli
2017-06-26  8:59 ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-11  8:25   ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-13  6:58     ` joeyli
2017-07-13  7:06       ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-13 12:45         ` joeyli
2017-07-14  8:37           ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-14 14:44             ` joeyli
2017-07-17  9:05               ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-19  9:09                 ` joeyli
2017-07-24  8:57                   ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-24  9:29                     ` joeyli [this message]
2017-07-25 12:48                       ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-31  7:38                         ` joeyli
2017-08-02  9:01                           ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-03  9:22                             ` joeyli
2017-08-03  9:31                               ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-03  9:52                                 ` joeyli
2017-08-03 11:25                                   ` Michal Hocko
2017-07-23  9:18               ` joeyli
2017-08-01 19:21                 ` YASUAKI ISHIMATSU
2017-08-02  5:49                   ` joeyli
2017-08-03 15:37                     ` YASUAKI ISHIMATSU
2017-08-04 15:06                       ` Michal Hocko
2017-08-15 10:04                         ` joeyli
2017-06-28 19:53 ` YASUAKI ISHIMATSU
2017-06-29  3:57   ` joeyli

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=20170724092921.GF3034@linux-l9pv.suse \
    --to=jlee@suse.com \
    --cc=isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    /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