Re: [PATCH v5 04/21] kernel: Add combined power-off+restart handler call chain API

Dmitry Osipenko
2022-01-11T07:57:23Z

09.01.2022 02:35, Michał Mirosław пишет:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 12:02:52AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> [...]
>> +/**
>> + * struct power_off_data - Power-off callback argument
>> + *
>> + * @cb_data: Callback data.
>> + */
>> +struct power_off_data {
>> + void *cb_data;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct power_off_prep_data - Power-off preparation callback argument
>> + *
>> + * @cb_data: Callback data.
>> + */
>> +struct power_off_prep_data {
>> + void *cb_data;
>> +};
>
> Why two exactly same structures? Why only a single pointer instead? If
> it just to enable type-checking callbacks, then thouse could be opaque
> or zero-sized structs that would be embedded or casted away in
> respective callbacks.

Preparation and final execution are two different operations, it's much
cleaner from a user's perspective to have same separated, IMO. In the
future we may would want to extend one of the structs, and not the
other. Type-checking is another benefit, of course.

The single callback pointer is what is utilized by all current kernel
users. This may change in the future and then it won't be a problem to
extend the power-off API without disrupting whole kernel.

>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct restart_data - Restart callback argument
>> + *
>> + * @cb_data: Callback data.
>> + * @cmd: Restart command string.
>> + * @stop_chain: Further lower priority callbacks won't be executed if set to
>> + * true. Can be changed within callback. Default is false.
>> + * @mode: Reboot mode ID.
>> + */
>> +struct restart_data {
>> + void *cb_data;
>> + const char *cmd;
>> + bool stop_chain;
>> + enum reboot_mode mode;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct reboot_prep_data - Reboot and shutdown preparation callback argument
>> + *
>> + * @cb_data: Callback data.
>> + * @cmd: Restart command string.
>> + * @stop_chain: Further lower priority callbacks won't be executed if set to
>> + * true. Can be changed within callback. Default is false.
>
> Why would we want to stop power-off or erboot chain? If the callback
> succeded, then further calls won't be made. If it doesn't succeed, but
> possibly breaks the system somehow, it shouldn't return. Then the only
> case left would be to just try the next method of shutting down.

This is what some of the API users were doing for years. I don't know
for sure why they want to stop the chain, it indeed looks like an
incorrect behaviour, but that's up to developers to decide. I only
retained the old behaviour for those users.

>> + * @mode: Preparation mode ID.
>> + */
>> +struct reboot_prep_data {
>> + void *cb_data;
>> + const char *cmd;
>> + bool stop_chain;
>> + enum reboot_prepare_mode mode;
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct sys_off_handler_private_data {
>> + struct notifier_block power_off_nb;
>> + struct notifier_block restart_nb;
>> + struct notifier_block reboot_nb;
>
> What's the difference between restart and reboot?

Reboot is always executed before restart and power-off callbacks. This
is explained in the doc-comment of the struct sys_off_handler.

+ * @reboot_prepare_cb: Reboot/shutdown preparation callback. All reboot
+ * preparation callbacks are invoked before @restart_cb or @power_off_cb,
+ * depending on the mode. It's registered with register_reboot_notifier().
+ * The point is to remove boilerplate code from drivers which use this
+ * callback in conjunction with the restart/power-off callbacks.
+ *

This reboot callback usually performs early preparations that are need
to be done before machine is placed into reset state, please see [1] for
the examples.

[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.16/A/ident/register_reboot_notifier

I agree that "reboot" sounds like a misnomer. This name was coined long
time ago, perhaps not worth to rename it at this point. I'm also not
sure what could be a better name.

>> + void (*platform_power_off_cb)(void);
>> + void (*simple_power_off_cb)(void *data);
>> + void *simple_power_off_cb_data;
>> + bool registered;
>> +};
>
> BTW, I couldn't find a right description of my idea of unifying the
> chains before, so let me sketch it now.
>
> The idea is to have a single system-off chain in which the callback
> gets a mode ({QUERY_*, PREP_*, DO_*} for each of {*_REBOOT, *_POWEROFF, ...?).
> The QUERY_* calls would be made in can_kernel_reboot/poweroff(): all
> would be called, and if at least one returned true, then the shutdown
> mode would continue. All of PREP_* would be called then. After that
> all DO_* would be tried until one doesn't return (succeeded or broke
> the system hard). Classic for(;;); could be a final fallback for the
> case where arch/machine (lowest priority) call would return instead
> of halting the system in machine-dependent way. The QUERY and PREP
> stages could be combined, but I haven't thought about it enough to
> see what conditions would need to be imposed on the callbacks in
> that case (maybe it's not worth the trouble, since it isn't a fast
> path anyway?). The goal here is to have less (duplicated) code in
> kernel, but otherwise it seems equivalent to your API proposal.

Michał, thank you for the review and suggestions! I'll take another look
at yours proposal during this merge window, in a preparation to v6.