From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
To: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com>,
Qing Huang <qing.huang@oracle.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] device probe: add self triggered delayed work request
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 00:16:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57A9833D.4080405@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <03e6a023-258b-9bbd-3c20-89b51b987ff3@oracle.com>
On 08/08/16 18:15, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>
>
> On 8/8/2016 6:11 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 08/08/16 14:51, Qing Huang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/08/2016 01:44 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>> On 07/29/16 22:39, Qing Huang wrote:
>>>>> In normal condition, the device probe requests kept in deferred
>>>>> queue would only be triggered for re-probing when another new device
>>>>> probe is finished successfully. This change will set up a delayed
>>>>> trigger work request if the current deferred probe being added is
>>>>> the only one in the queue. This delayed work request will try to
>>>>> reactivate any device from the deferred queue for re-probing later.
>>>>>
>>>>> By doing this, if the last device being probed in system boot process
>>>>> has a deferred probe error, this particular device will still be able
>>>>> to be probed again.
>>>> I am trying to understand the use case.
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain the scenario you are trying to fix? If I understand
>>>> correctly, you expect that something will change such that a later
>>>> probe attempt will succeed. How will that change occur and why
>>>> will the deferred probe list not be processed in this case?
>>>>
>>>> Why are you conditioning this on the deferred_probe_pending_list
>>>> being empty?
>>>>
>>>> -Frank
>>>
>>> It turns out one corner case which we worried about has already been
>>> solved in the really_probe() function by comparing
>>> 'deferred_trigger_count' values.
>>>
>>> Another use case we are investigating now: when we probe a device,
>>> the main thread returns EPROBE_DEFER from the driver after we spawn a
>>> child thread to do the actual init work. So we can initialize
>>> multiple similar devices at the same time. After the child thread
>>> finishes its task, we can call driver_deferred_probe_trigger()
>>> directly from child thread to re-probe the
>>> device(driver_deferred_probe_trigger() has to be exported though). Or
>>> we could rely on something in this patch to re-probe the deferred
>>> devices from the pending list...
>>> What do you suggest?
>>
>> See commit 735a7ffb739b6efeaeb1e720306ba308eaaeb20e for how multi-threaded
>> probes were intended to be handled. I don't know if this approach is used
>> much or even usable, but that is the framework that was created.
>>
> That infrastructure got removed as part of below commit :-(
>
> commit 5adc55da4a7758021bcc374904b0f8b076508a11
> Author: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> Date: Tue Mar 27 03:02:51 2007 +0200
>
> PCI: remove the broken PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE option
>
> This patch removes the PCI_MULTITHREAD_PROBE option that had already
> been marked as broken.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
Hmmmm. :-( indeed.
The *_initcall_sync defines are still there, but yep, the wait_for_probes()
part is gone. Thanks for the info about the partial removal.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-09 7:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-30 5:39 [PATCH] device probe: add self triggered delayed work request Qing Huang
2016-08-08 20:44 ` Frank Rowand
2016-08-08 21:51 ` Qing Huang
2016-08-09 1:11 ` Frank Rowand
2016-08-09 1:15 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2016-08-09 7:16 ` Frank Rowand [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-08-08 10:42 Shamir Rabinovitch
2016-08-09 0:10 ` Qing Huang
2016-08-09 10:11 ` Shamir Rabinovitch
2016-08-09 20:57 ` Qing Huang
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=57A9833D.4080405@gmail.com \
--to=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qing.huang@oracle.com \
--cc=santosh.shilimkar@oracle.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).