Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:20:12 +0800 | From | "canquan.shen" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4] acpi: Fix CPU hot removal problem |
| |
On 2011/9/23 22:16, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:49 AM, canquan.shen<shencanquan@huawei.com> wrote: >> On 2011/9/23 0:53, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Bjorn Helgaas<bhelgaas@google.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:06 PM, canquan.shen<shencanquan@huawei.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We run linux as a guest in Xen environment. When we used the xen tools >>>>> (xm vcpu-set<n>) to hot add and remove vcpu to and from the guest, we >>>>> encountered the failure on vcpu removal. We found the reason is that it >>>>> didn't go to really remove cpu in the cpu removal code path. >>>>> >>>>> This patch adds acpi_bus_trim in acpi_process_hotplug_notify to fix this >>>>> issue. With this patch, it works fine for us. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by:Canquan Shen<shencanquan@huawei.com> >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Helgaas<bhelgaas@google.com> >>> >>> On second thought, let's think about this a bit more. >>> >>> As I mentioned before, I have a long-term goal to move the hotplug >>> flow out of drivers and into the ACPI core. That will be easier if >>> the code in the drivers is as generic as possible. >>> >>> The dock and acpiphp hot-remove code calls acpi_bus_trim(), then >>> evaluates _EJ0. The core acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() function >>> already does both acpi_bus_trim() and _EJ0. This function is >>> currently only used when we write to sysfs "eject" files, but I wonder >>> if we should use it in acpi_processor_hotplug_notify() as well. >>> >>> That would get us one step closer to removing this gunk from the >>> drivers and having acpi_bus_notify() look something like this: >>> >>> case ACPI_NOTIFY_EJECT_REQUEST: >>> driver->ops.remove(device); >>> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device(device); >>> break; >>> >>> There is a description of a CPU hot-remove that does include _EJ0 >>> methods in the "DIG64 Hot-Plug& Partitioning Flows Specification" >>> [1], sec 2.2.4. I know this document is Itanium-oriented, but this >>> part seems fairly generic and it's the only description of the process >>> I've seen so far. >>> >>> So would using acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() instead of acpi_bus_trim() >>> also solve your problem, Canquan? >>> >> Yes. It can solve my problem. >> I fully aggree to replace acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() to acpi_bus_trim(). >> Initially I insert the acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() in acpi_bus_notify >> function . lately I think I should give a chance for user,and so send >> KOBJ_OFFLINE message to the udvev module. >> >> But why add the driver->ops.remove(device) before >> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device(device). it can be called in >> acpi_bus_hot_remove_device code path as bellowing: >> acpi_bus_trim >> acpi_bus_remove >> device_release_driver >> __device_release_driver >> acpi_device_remove >> acpi_drv->ops.remove > > OK. Maybe the future acpi_bus_notify() code would be even simpler. > The point is that the ACPI core should handle the notification, call > the driver's .remove() method, and do whatever namespace cleanup is > required (i.e., acpi_bus_trim()). None of this should be in the > driver itself. > > Can you re-post your patch, using acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() instead > of acpi_bus_trim()? Please include Khalid's tweak, too, so we don't > print warnings for CPUs that don't supply _EJ0 methods. > > Bjorn > > . > OK. I will modify it and re-post the patch which will include Khalid's tweak. and Thank Khalid for attention this patch.
| |