Re: [RFC v2 0/6] driver-core: add asynch probe support
From: Tejun Heo
Date: Fri Sep 05 2014 - 03:11:57 EST
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 11:37:21PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Tejun's concerns on this regressing some driver's scripts which expect
> the device to be available after loading remains valid, and the only
> thing we can do to help there is to annotate the expecations on the
> use of this "feature" to driver users. Scripts should be not be relying
> on the driver init anyway so that type of usage should be phased out
> and they should be hunting in udev for things popping up.
Ummm... I really don't think we can say that. This was one of the
supported ways to wait for the probing of pre-existing devices on
driver load. We can't simply go and declare that "scripts should not
be relying on the driver init anyway". We just can't do that.
> I'm a bit concerned about this actually regressing load time on
> drivers that use this though instead of just having the module
> probe run off of finit_module() though. Even with a kthread alternative
> at least Santosh (Cc'd) has noted a regression in terms of time it
> takes to complete probe on cxgb4. I'll eventually get your exact
> numbers, but for now its an obvious regression *with* kthreads,
> this solution goes with:
> queue_work(system_unbound_wq, async_probe_work)
> This is surely going to make things even worse... We could
> use system_highpri_wq, or change the scheduling priority, but
> for that I'd prefer to get feedback and someone to decide what
> the right choice (TM) should be.
It shouldn't add any noticeable delays in probing. If it does, we
should track down why that's happening and fix it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/