public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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