Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] acpi: Introduce prepare_remove device operation

From: Jiang Liu
Date: Thu Dec 06 2012 - 11:58:58 EST

On 11/29/2012 07:36 PM, Vasilis Liaskovitis wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:15:31AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:41:36 AM Toshi Kani wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 19:05 +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> We met the same problem when we doing computer node hotplug, It is a good idea
>>>> to introduce prepare_remove before actual device removal.
>>>> I think we could do more in prepare_remove, such as rollback. In most cases, we can
>>>> offline most of memory sections except kernel used pages now, should we rollback
>>>> and online the memory sections when prepare_remove failed ?
>>> I think hot-plug operation should have all-or-nothing semantics. That
>>> is, an operation should either complete successfully, or rollback to the
>>> original state.
>> That's correct.
>>>> As you may know, the ACPI based hotplug framework we are working on already addressed
>>>> this problem, and the way we slove this problem is a bit like yours.
>>>> We introduce hp_ops in struct acpi_device_ops:
>>>> struct acpi_device_ops {
>>>> acpi_op_add add;
>>>> acpi_op_remove remove;
>>>> acpi_op_start start;
>>>> acpi_op_bind bind;
>>>> acpi_op_unbind unbind;
>>>> acpi_op_notify notify;
>>>> struct acpihp_dev_ops *hp_ops;
>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG */
>>>> };
>>>> in hp_ops, we divide the prepare_remove into six small steps, that is:
>>>> 1) pre_release(): optional step to mark device going to be removed/busy
>>>> 2) release(): reclaim device from running system
>>>> 3) post_release(): rollback if cancelled by user or error happened
>>>> 4) pre_unconfigure(): optional step to solve possible dependency issue
>>>> 5) unconfigure(): remove devices from running system
>>>> 6) post_unconfigure(): free resources used by devices
>>>> In this way, we can easily rollback if error happens.
>>>> How do you think of this solution, any suggestion ? I think we can achieve
>>>> a better way for sharing ideas. :)
>>> Yes, sharing idea is good. :) I do not know if we need all 6 steps (I
>>> have not looked at all your changes yet..), but in my mind, a hot-plug
>>> operation should be composed with the following 3 phases.
>>> 1. Validate phase - Verify if the request is a supported operation. All
>>> known restrictions are verified at this phase. For instance, if a
>>> hot-remove request involves kernel memory, it is failed in this phase.
>>> Since this phase makes no change, no rollback is necessary to fail.
>> Actually, we can't do it this way, because the conditions may change between
>> the check and the execution. So the first phase needs to involve execution
>> to some extent, although only as far as it remains reversible.
>>> 2. Execute phase - Perform hot-add / hot-remove operation that can be
>>> rolled-back in case of error or cancel.
>> I would just merge 1 and 2.
> I agree steps 1 and 2 can be merged, at least for the current ACPI framework.
> E.g. for memory hotplug, the mm function we call for memory removal
> (remove_memory) handles both these steps.
> The new ACPI framework could perhaps expand the operations as Hanjun described,
> if it makes sense.
Hi Vasilis,
We have worked some prototypes to split the memory hotplug logic in mem_hotplug.c
into minor steps, so it would be easier for error handling/cancellation. But we still
need to improve the code quality and merge with changes from Fujitsu.

> thanks,
> - Vasilis
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at
> Please read the FAQ at

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at