Re: [PATCH] of: introduce event tracepoints for dynamic device_node lifecyle

[Tyrel Datwyler]

On 04/19/2017 03:13 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:46 AM, Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Tyrel Datwyler
>>> <tyreld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> This patch introduces event tracepoints for tracking a device_nodes
>>>> reference cycle as well as reconfig notifications generated in response
>>>> to node/property manipulations.
>>>>
>>>> With the recent upstreaming of the refcount API several device_node
>>>> underflows and leaks have come to my attention in the pseries (DLPAR) dynamic
>>>> logical partitioning code (ie. POWER speak for hotplugging virtual and physcial
>>>> resources at runtime such as cpus or IOAs). These tracepoints provide a
>>>> easy and quick mechanism for validating the reference counting of
>>>> device_nodes during their lifetime.
>>>
>>> Not really relevant for this patch, but since you are looking at
>>> pseries and refcounting, the refcounting largely exists for pseries.
>>> It's also hard to get right as this type of fix is fairly common. It's
>>> now used for overlays, but we really probably only need to refcount
>>> the overlays or changesets as a whole, not at a node level. If you
>>> have any thoughts on how a different model of refcounting could work
>>> for pseries, I'd like to discuss it.
>>
>> One idea I've been kicking around is differentiating short and long
>> term references to a node.
> 
> I actually did this a long time ago, but balked at the size of the patch
> to do the conversion. Let me see if I can find it lying around ...

It would be interesting to revisit this, and toss around any other ideas
anyone may have.

-Tyrel

> 
> cheers
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>