From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, yinghai@kernel.org,
toshi.kani@hp.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: acpi_bus_trim does not detach devices in post order
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 02:57:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <11026265.tBv8b0WrJO@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52019667.3010405@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Wednesday, August 07, 2013 09:35:51 AM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> (2013/08/06 23:26), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 07:06:37 PM Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> >> (2013/08/06 12:07), Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I acked the following commit but I hit a problem by the commit.
> >>> So I report it.
> >>>
> >>> commit cecdb193c8d91a42d9489d00618cc3dfff92e55a
> >>> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >>> Date: Tue Jan 15 13:24:02 2013 +0100
> >>>
> >>> ACPI / scan: Change the implementation of acpi_bus_trim()
> >>>
> >>> Before applying the commit, acpi_bus_trim() detachs devices in post order.
> >>>
> >>> When I hot add memory devices and processor devices by container device
> >>> in my x86 box, memory devices are added first and processor devices are added
> >>> second. So I expect that processor devices are removed first and memory
> >>> devices are removed second when I remove them. And before applying the
> >>> commit, acpi_bus_trim() did so.
> >>>
> >>> But after appling the commit, acpi_bus_trim() does not detach devices in
> >>> post order. So when I remove them, memory devices are removed first and
> >>> processor devices are removed second.
> >>>
> >>> By this, I hit a problem.
> >>>
> >>> In Linux on x86 arch, NUMA node is depend on memory devices. So new NUMA
> >>> node is created at memory hot adding. Thus when I hot add memory devices and
> >>> processor devices, we must hot add memory device first. Otherwise, processor
> >>> devices are not set to correct NUMA node number.
> >>>
> >>> And Linux expects that when removing them, processor devices are removed
> >>> first before removing memory devices. But acpi_bus_trim() does not do so.
> >>> By this, NUMA node is not cleared in my x86 box when hot removing memory device
> >>> and processor devices. When removing memory devices, NUMA node is cleared.
> >>> But if there are processor devices related with the NUMA node, NUMA node is
> >>> not be cleared at memory hot removing.
> >>>
> >>> So when I remove them, NUMA node's sysfs file remained as follows:
> >>
> >> I had little mistake. CPU also tries to clear NUMA node.
> >> But current implementation has bug. So I'll fix it.
> >
>
> > Do I understand correctly that with your fix at
> >
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2839298/
> >
> > the current acpi_bus_trim() implementation will be sufficient?
>
> No. The patch just fixed implementation of CPU hotplug.
My question was not sufficiently precise. :-)
I wanted to ask if your patch was sufficient to address the specific breakage
you were seeing without modifying acpi_bus_trim().
> A problem I think is that acpi_bus_trim() does not detach devices in
> post-order.
That is not exactly post-order, but children are guaranteed to be processed
before their parents. If that guarantee is sufficient, there's no problem.
Otherwise, acpi_bus_trim() may need to be modified, but first I'd like to
see a real life example where that really matters.
> And my patch does not fix it. So if some device has dependency
> of other device, similar problem will occur.
If there is a dependency that is not a parent-child one, we'll have a problem,
but in that case relying on ordering will not be robust enough anyway in my
opinion.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-07 0:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-06 3:07 Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2013-08-06 10:06 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2013-08-06 14:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-08-07 0:35 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2013-08-07 0:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2013-08-07 3:21 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
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=11026265.tBv8b0WrJO@vostro.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=toshi.kani@hp.com \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®