[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 01/12] Add sys_hotplug.h for system device hotplug framework
On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 15:21 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 04, 2013 04:48:10 AM Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 09:44:39PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > Yes, but those are just remove events and we can only see how destructive they
> > > > were after the removal. The point is to be able to figure out whether or not
> > > > we *want* to do the removal in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > Say you have a computing node which signals a hardware problem in a processor
> > > > package (the container with CPU cores, memory, PCI host bridge etc.). You
> > > > may want to eject that package, but you don't want to kill the system this
> > > > way. So if the eject is doable, it is very much desirable to do it, but if it
> > > > is not doable, you'd rather shut the box down and do the replacement afterward.
> > > > That may be costly, however (maybe weeks of computations), so it should be
> > > > avoided if possible, but not at the expense of crashing the box if the eject
> > > > doesn't work out.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that we could handle that with the help of a new flag, say
> > > "no_eject", in struct device, a global mutex, and a function that will walk
> > > the given subtree of the device hierarchy and check if "no_eject" is set for
> > > any devices in there. Plus a global "no_eject" switch, perhaps.
> >
> > I think this will always be racy, or at worst, slow things down on
> > normal device operations as you will always be having to grab this flag
> > whenever you want to do something new.
> I don't see why this particular scheme should be racy, at least I don't see any
> obvious races in it (although I'm not that good at races detection in general,
> admittedly).
> Also, I don't expect that flag to be used for everything, just for things known
> to seriously break if forcible eject is done. That may be not precise enough,
> so that's a matter of defining its purpose more precisely.
> We can do something like that on the ACPI level (ie. introduce a no_eject flag
> in struct acpi_device and provide an iterface for the layers above ACPI to
> manipulate it) but then devices without ACPI namespace objects won't be
> covered. That may not be a big deal, though.

I am afraid that bringing the device status management into the ACPI
level would not a good idea. acpi_device should only reflect ACPI
device object information, not how its actual device is being used.

I like your initiative of acpi_scan_driver and I think scanning /
trimming of ACPI object info is what the ACPI drivers should do.


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-04 18:06    [W:0.083 / U:1.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site