From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@canonical.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay@vrfy.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>,
Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@pierref.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@suse.de>,
Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@avagotech.com>,
Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@avagotech.com>,
Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@avagotech.com>,
Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@avagotech.com>,
Hariprasad S <hariprasad@chelsio.com>,
Santosh Rastapur <santosh@chelsio.com>,
MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@avagotech.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] init / kthread: add module_long_probe_init() and module_long_probe_exit()
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:52:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <s5hfvguw570.wl-tiwai@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140817182138.GA4411@redhat.com>
At Sun, 17 Aug 2014 20:21:38 +0200,
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 08/17, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >
> > In the last iteration that I have stress tested for corner cases I just
> > get_task_struct() on the init and then put_task_struct() at the exit, is that
> > fine too or are there reasons to prefer the module stuff?
>
> I am fine either way.
>
> I like the Takashi's idea because if sys_delete_module() is called before
> initfn() completes it will return -EBUSY and not hang in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> state. But this is not necessarily good, so I leave this to you and Takashi.
Another merit of fiddling with module count is that the thread object
isn't referred in other than module_init. That is, we'd need only
module_init() implementation like below (thanks to Oleg's advice):
#define module_long_probe_init(initfn) \
static int _long_probe_##initfn(void *arg) \
{ \
module_put_and_exit(initfn()); \
return 0; \
} \
static int __init __long_probe_##initfn(void) \
{ \
struct task_struct *__init_thread = \
kthread_create(_long_probe_##initfn, \
NULL, #initfn); \
if (IS_ERR(__init_thread)) \
return PTR_ERR(__init_thread); \
__module_get(THIS_MODULE); \
wake_up_process(__init_thread); \
return 0; \
} \
module_init(__long_probe_##initfn)
... and module_exit() remains identical as the normal version.
But, it's really a small difference, and I don't mind much which way
to take, too.
> > +/*
> > + * Linux device drivers must strive to handle driver initialization
> > + * within less than 30 seconds,
>
> Well, perhaps the comment should name the reason ;)
>
> > if device probing takes longer
> > + * for whatever reason asynchronous probing of devices / loading
> > + * firmware should be used. If a driver takes longer than 30 second
> > + * on the initialization path
>
> Or if the initialization code can't handle the errors properly (say,
> mptsas can't handle the errors caused by SIGKILL).
>
> > + * Drivers that use this helper should be considered broken and in need
> > + * of some serious love.
> > + */
>
> Yes.
>
> > +#define module_long_probe_init(initfn) \
> > + static struct task_struct *__init_thread; \
> > + static int _long_probe_##initfn(void *arg) \
> > + { \
> > + return initfn(); \
> > + } \
> > + static inline __init int __long_probe_##initfn(void) \
> > + { \
> > + __init_thread = kthread_create(_long_probe_##initfn,\
> > + NULL, \
> > + #initfn); \
> > + if (IS_ERR(__init_thread)) \
> > + return PTR_ERR(__init_thread); \
> > + /* \
> > + * callback won't check kthread_should_stop() \
> > + * before bailing, so we need to protect it \
> > + * before running it. \
> > + */ \
> > + get_task_struct(__init_thread); \
> > + wake_up_process(__init_thread); \
> > + return 0; \
> > + } \
> > + module_init(__long_probe_##initfn);
> > +
> > +/* To be used by modules that require module_long_probe_init() */
> > +#define module_long_probe_exit(exitfn) \
> > + static inline void __long_probe_##exitfn(void) \
> > + { \
> > + int err; \
> > + /* \
> > + * exitfn() will not be run if the driver's \
> > + * real probe which is run on the kthread \
> > + * failed for whatever reason, this will \
> > + * wait for it to end. \
> > + */ \
> > + err = kthread_stop(__init_thread); \
> > + if (!err) \
> > + exitfn(); \
> > + put_task_struct(__init_thread); \
> > + } \
> > + module_exit(__long_probe_##exitfn);
>
> Both inline's look misleading, gcc will generate the code out-of-line
> anyway. But this is cosmetic. And for cosmetic reasons, since the 1st
> macro uses __init, the 2nd one should probably use __exit.
Yes, and it'd be better to mention not to mark initfn with __init
prefix. (Meanwhile exitfn can be with __exit prefix.)
thanks,
Takashi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-18 8:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-12 22:28 [PATCH v3 0/3] module loading: add module_long_probe_init() Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-08-12 22:28 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] init / kthread: add module_long_probe_init() and module_long_probe_exit() Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-08-12 22:59 ` Tetsuo Handa
2014-08-13 1:03 ` Greg KH
2014-08-13 17:51 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-14 23:10 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-08-15 14:39 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-16 2:50 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-08-17 6:59 ` Takashi Iwai
2014-08-17 12:25 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-17 12:48 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-17 12:55 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-17 17:46 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-08-17 18:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-18 8:52 ` Takashi Iwai [this message]
2014-08-18 12:22 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-18 13:20 ` Takashi Iwai
2014-08-18 15:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-08-19 4:11 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-08-12 22:28 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] cxgb4: use module_long_probe_init() Luis R. Rodriguez
2014-08-13 23:33 ` Anish Bhatt
2014-08-14 16:42 ` Casey Leedom
2014-08-12 22:28 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] mptsas: " Luis R. Rodriguez
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=s5hfvguw570.wl-tiwai@suse.de \
--to=tiwai@suse.de \
--cc=MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@avagotech.com \
--cc=abhijit.mahajan@avagotech.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bpoirier@suse.de \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hariprasad@chelsio.com \
--cc=joseph.salisbury@canonical.com \
--cc=kay@vrfy.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcgrof@do-not-panic.com \
--cc=mcgrof@suse.com \
--cc=nagalakshmi.nandigama@avagotech.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
--cc=pierre-fersing@pierref.org \
--cc=praveen.krishnamoorthy@avagotech.com \
--cc=santosh@chelsio.com \
--cc=sreekanth.reddy@avagotech.com \
--cc=tim.gardner@canonical.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