[RFC PATCH v2 01/12] Add sys_hotplug.h for system device hotplug framework

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, February 01, 2013 01:40:10 PM Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 07:30 +0000, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 06:32:18PM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >  > This is already done for PCI host bridges and platform devices and I don't
> > > > see why we can't do that for the other types of devices too.
> > > > 
> > > > The only missing piece I see is a way to handle the "eject" problem, i.e.
> > > > when we try do eject a device at the top of a subtree and need to tear down
> > > > the entire subtree below it, but if that's going to lead to a system crash,
> > > > for example, we want to cancel the eject.  It seems to me that we'll need some
> > > > help from the driver core here.
> > > 
> > > There are three different approaches suggested for system device
> > > hot-plug:
> > >  A. Proceed within system device bus scan.
> > >  B. Proceed within ACPI bus scan.
> > >  C. Proceed with a sequence (as a mini-boot).
> > > 
> > > Option A uses system devices as tokens, option B uses acpi devices as
> > > tokens, and option C uses resource tables as tokens, for their handlers.
> > > 
> > > Here is summary of key questions & answers so far.  I hope this
> > > clarifies why I am suggesting option 3.
> > > 
> > > 1. What are the system devices?
> > > System devices provide system-wide core computing resources, which are
> > > essential to compose a computer system.  System devices are not
> > > connected to any particular standard buses.
> > 
> > Not a problem, lots of devices are not connected to any "particular
> > standard busses".  All this means is that system devices are connected
> > to the "system" bus, nothing more.
> 
> Can you give me a few examples of other devices that support hotplug and
> are not connected to any particular buses?  I will investigate them to
> see how they are managed to support hotplug.
> 
> > > 2. Why are the system devices special?
> > > The system devices are initialized during early boot-time, by multiple
> > > subsystems, from the boot-up sequence, in pre-defined order.  They
> > > provide low-level services to enable other subsystems to come up.
> > 
> > Sorry, no, that doesn't mean they are special, nothing here is unique
> > for the point of view of the driver model from any other device or bus.
> 
> I think system devices are unique in a sense that they are initialized
> before drivers run.
> 
> > > 3. Why can't initialize the system devices from the driver structure at
> > > boot?
> > > The driver structure is initialized at the end of the boot sequence and
> > > requires the low-level services from the system devices initialized
> > > beforehand.
> > 
> > Wait, what "driver structure"?  
> 
> Sorry it was not clear.  cpu_dev_init() and memory_dev_init() are called
> from driver_init() at the end of the boot sequence, and initialize
> system/cpu and system/memory devices.  I assume they are the system bus
> you are referring with option A.
> 
> > If you need to initialize the driver
> > core earlier, then do so.  Or, even better, just wait until enough of
> > the system has come up and then go initialize all of the devices you
> > have found so far as part of your boot process.
> 
> They are pseudo drivers that provide sysfs entry points of cpu and
> memory.  They do not actually initialize cpu and memory.  I do not think
> initializing cpu and memory fits into the driver model either, since
> drivers should run after cpu and memory are initialized.
> 
> > None of the above things you have stated seem to have anything to do
> > with your proposed patch, so I don't understand why you have mentioned
> > them...
> 
> You suggested option A before, which uses system bus scan to initialize
> all system devices at boot time as well as hot-plug.  I tried to say
> that this option would not be doable.
> 
> > > 4. Why do we need a new common framework?
> > > Sysfs CPU and memory on-lining/off-lining are performed within the CPU
> > > and memory modules.  They are common code and do not depend on ACPI.
> > > Therefore, a new common framework is necessary to integrate both
> > > on-lining/off-lining operation and hot-plugging operation of system
> > > devices into a single framework.
> > 
> > {sigh}
> > 
> > Removing and adding devices and handling hotplug operations is what the
> > driver core was written for, almost 10 years ago.  To somehow think that
> > your devices are "special" just because they don't use ACPI is odd,
> > because the driver core itself has nothing to do with ACPI.  Don't get
> > the current mix of x86 system code tied into ACPI confused with an
> > driver core issues here please.
> 
> CPU online/offline operation is performed within the CPU module.  Memory
> online/offline operation is performed within the memory module.  CPU and
> memory hotplug operations are performed within ACPI.  While they deal
> with the same set of devices, they operate independently and are not
> managed under a same framework.
> 
> I agree with you that not using ACPI is perfectly fine.  My point is
> that ACPI framework won't be able to manage operations that do not use
> ACPI.
> 
> > > 5. Why can't do everything with ACPI bus scan?
> > > Software dependency among system devices may not be dictated by the ACPI
> > > hierarchy.  For instance, memory should be initialized before CPUs (i.e.
> > > a new cpu may need its local memory), but such ordering cannot be
> > > guaranteed by the ACPI hierarchy.  Also, as described in 4,
> > > online/offline operations are independent from ACPI.  
> > 
> > That's fine, the driver core is independant from ACPI.  I don't care how
> > you do the scaning of your devices, but I do care about you creating new
> > driver core pieces that duplicate the existing functionality of what we
> > have today.
> >
> > In short, I like Rafael's proposal better, and I fail to see how
> > anything you have stated here would matter in how this is implemented. :)
> 
> Doing everything within ACPI means we can only manage ACPI hotplug
> operations, not online/offline operations.  But I understand that you
> concern about adding a new framework with option C.  It is good to know
> that you are fine with option B. :)  So, I will step back, and think
> about what we can do within ACPI.

Not much, because ACPI only knows about a subset of devices that may be
involved in that, and a limited one for that matter.  For one example,
anything connected through PCI and not having a corresponding ACPI object (i.e.
pretty much every add-in card in existence) will be unknown to ACPI.  And
say one of these things is a SATA controller with a number of disks under it
and so on.  ACPI won't even know that it exists.  Moreover, PCI won't know
that those disks exist.  Etc.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.