From: "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To: "James Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>
Cc: "Tejun Heo" <htejun@gmail.com>,
gregkh@suse.de, hugh@veritas.com, cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com,
oneukum@suse.de, maneesh@in.ibm.com, rpurdie@rpsys.net,
"Jeff Garzik" <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-ide@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>,
"SCSI Mailing List" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD driver-core] Lifetime problems of the current driver model
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:15:50 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d120d5000703300615y7b367d82hb42f1c58ca8a6328@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1175257751.3760.19.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com>
Hi James,
On 3/30/07, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 18:43 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Orphaning sysfs nodes on unregistration is a big step in this
> > direction. With sysfs reference counting out of the picture,
> > implementing 'disconnect immediate' interface only on a few components
> > (including request_queue) should suffice for most block device
> > drivers. I'm not familiar with other drivers but I don't think
> > they'll be very different.
>
> I agree with this statement. The big question in my mind is how do we
> do it?
>
> The essential problem, and the reason why the lifetime rules are
> entangled is that fundamentally, sysfs entries are managed by kobjects.
> The things the device drivers are interested in is struct device, which
> is usually embedded in driver data structures. Unfortunately, the
> required kobject is usually embedded in struct device meaning that the
> relevant driver structure cannot be freed while the sysfs entry still
> exists.
>
> It seems to me that the only way to Orphan the sysfs entries is to
> separate the kobject and the struct device so their lifetime rules are
> no longer entangled. Then we can free the driver structure with the
> embedded struct device while still keeping the necessary kobject around
> to perform orphaned sysfs operations.
>
> So it seems to me that what we need to do is to give struct device its
> own kref and a pointer to a kobject. Then we can manage the separate
> lifetimes independently. The device would basically allocate and take a
> reference to the kobject on device_add() and relinquish it again (and
> null out the kobject pointer) on device_del(). The complexity here is
> that we now have to allocate the kobject somewhere else ... probably in
> device_add() (it doesn't come for free with the device structures).
>
If you want to manage lifetime rules independently you might want to
not embed struct device into you subsystems objects but attach them
via pointers and use device_create(). Now that we orphan sysfs access
upon unregistering device this will severe all ties from driver core
to your system once you start teardown of a device and you should be
in clear.
However there are simpler subsystems (input, serio, etc.) where there
is only one core module which provides services to device drivers and
handles registration and deregistration. For such substustems it makes
sense to embed struct devices and manage lifetime for all components
at once.
--
Dmitry
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-03-30 13:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-03-30 9:43 Tejun Heo
2007-03-30 12:29 ` James Bottomley
2007-03-30 13:15 ` Dmitry Torokhov [this message]
2007-03-30 17:58 ` James Bottomley
2007-03-30 18:18 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2007-03-30 13:38 ` Tejun Heo
2007-03-30 17:41 ` Greg KH
2007-03-30 18:19 ` James Bottomley
2007-04-01 19:59 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-02 9:20 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-02 15:34 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-04-03 3:08 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-02 9:33 ` Greg KH
2007-04-02 12:10 ` Maneesh Soni
2007-04-02 19:33 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-03-30 13:19 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-03-30 13:19 ` Tejun Heo
2007-03-30 13:40 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-03-30 13:58 ` Tejun Heo
2007-03-30 14:52 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-03-30 15:08 ` Tejun Heo
2007-03-30 19:31 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-03-31 3:12 ` Tejun Heo
2007-03-31 3:15 ` Tejun Heo
2007-03-31 16:08 ` Cornelia Huck
2007-03-31 16:14 ` Tejun Heo
2007-04-02 19:24 ` Luben Tuikov
2007-03-30 17:38 ` Greg KH
2007-04-07 15:48 Alan Stern
2007-04-08 2:55 ` Tejun Heo
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=d120d5000703300615y7b367d82hb42f1c58ca8a6328@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maneesh@in.ibm.com \
--cc=oneukum@suse.de \
--cc=rpurdie@rpsys.net \
/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®