Re: A udev rule to serve the change event of ACPI container?

From: Michal Hocko
Date: Fri Jul 14 2017 - 04:37:24 EST

On Thu 13-07-17 20:45:21, Joey Lee wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 09:06:19AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 13-07-17 14:58:06, Joey Lee wrote:
> > > If BIOS emits ejection event for a ACPI0004 container, someone needs
> > > to handle the offline/eject jobs of container. Either kernel or user
> > > space.
> > >
> > > Only sending uevent to individual child device can simplify udev rule,
> > > but it also means that the kernel needs to offline/eject container
> > > after all children devices are offlined.
> >
> > Why cannot kernel send this eject command to the BIOS if the whole
> > container is offline? If it is not then the kernel would send EBUSY to
> Current kernel container hot-remove process:
> BIOS -> SCI event -> Kernel ACPI -> uevent -> userland
> Then, kernel just calls _OST to expose state to BIOS, then process is
> stopped. Kernel doesn't wait there for userland to offline each child
> devices. Either BIOS or userland needs to trigger the container
> ejection.
> > container is offline? If it is not then the kernel would send EBUSY to
> > the BIOS and BIOS would have to retry after some timeout. Or is it a
> The d429e5c122 patch is merged to mainline. So kernel will send
> DEVICE_BUSY to BIOS after it emits uevent to userland. BIOS can choice
> to apply the retry approach until OS returns process failure exactly or
> BIOS timeout.
> > problem that currently implemented BIOS firmwares do not implement this
> > retry?
> Yes, we should consider the behavior of old BIOS. Old BIOS doesn't
> retry/resend the ejection event. So kernel or userland need to take the
> retry job. Obviously userland runs the retry since the caa73ea15 patch
> is merged.
> IMHO there have two different expectation from user space application.
> Applications like DVD player or Burner expect that kernel should
> info userspace for the ejection, then application can do their cleaning
> job and re-trigger ejection from userland.

I am not sure I understand the DVD example because I do not see how it
fits into the container and online/offline scenario.

> But, some other applications like database don't want that their service
> be stopped when the devices offline/eject. The hot-remove sholud be done by
> kernel transparently.
> We need a way for fill two situations.

Hmm, so can we trigger the eject from the _kernel_ when the last child
is offlined?
Michal Hocko