[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [OKS] Module removal
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I think you have to do it with the use count, and there may well be
> modules you can't remove safely.

I agree, this is the correct and clean thing to do.

It rather implies that any function in a module which calls
MOD_{INC,DEC}_USE_COUNT should always be called from a non-module
function which _itself_ protects the module from removal by temporarily
bumping the use count.

> But to add re-init code to modules,
> define new ioctls to call it, etc, etc, doesn't seem satisfactory. I think
> we really need to bump the use counter more carefully, to really know when
> a module is in use, and when we can clear it out.
> The smp case looks doable, the preempt case may be harder. I really like
> the idea of simply queueing a remove and then doing it when the use count
> drops to zero. But we have have to provide a "don't use" to keep new
> things out. That's hard.

That's already done in `try_inc_mod_count', it's just a bit slow. But
arguably it's only impact is when you're getting a handle or creating an
object, which is usually relatively slow anyway, such as opening a
device or socket, or adding a firewall rule.

The more I think about it, the more I think the `owner' thing in
file_operations et al. is the right thing in all cases, and that Al Viro
is right about the overhead being reasonable. Perhaps the interface
could be made a little more generic (`{get,put}_module_reference'?), and
double check the corner cases such as when a module is in "don't use"
mode, blocking and scheduling a reload.

-- Jamie
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.114 / U:3.628 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site