Message ID | CAE9FiQXxHz_RntOc2gxxDscv8+mDQ2XBL0sHSrptj_arwUb8-A@mail.gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Delegated to: | Bjorn Helgaas |
Headers | show |
On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 11:28 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com> wrote: > > > > Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that > > acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules. Looks like > > you have the same problem here. FYI, I just sent the following patch > > that exports acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() and acpi_os_hotplug_execute(). > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/1/225 > > acpi_os_hotplug_execute() does not like having good quality yet. > > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 941) /* > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 942) * We > can't run hotplug code in keventd_wq/kacpid_wq/kacpid_notify_wq > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 943) * > because the hotplug code may call driver .remove() functions, > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 944) * > which invoke flush_scheduled_work/acpi_os_wait_events_complete > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 945) * to > flush these workqueues. > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 946) */ > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 947) queue > = hp ? kacpi_hotplug_wq : > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 948) > (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq); > 9ac61856 (Bjorn Helgaas 2009-08-31 22:32:10 +0000 949) > dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0; > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 950) > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 951) if > (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq) > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 952) > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 953) else > if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq) > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 954) > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 955) else > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 956) > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 957) > > really don't know why checking queue and call same code in every branch. > > from comm: > > commit bc73675b99fd9850dd914be01d71af99c5d2a1ae > Author: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > Date: Mon Mar 22 15:48:54 2010 +0800 > > ACPI: fixes a false alarm from lockdep > > fixes a false alarm from lockdep, as acpi hotplug workqueue waits other > workqueues. > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14553 > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15521 > > Original-patch-from: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/osl.c b/drivers/acpi/osl.c > index 8e6d866..900da68 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/osl.c > @@ -758,7 +758,14 @@ static acpi_status > __acpi_os_execute(acpi_execute_type type, > queue = hp ? kacpi_hotplug_wq : > (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq); > dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0; > - INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > + > + if (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq) > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > + else if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq) > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > + else > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > + > ret = queue_work(queue, &dpc->work); > > if (!ret) { > > > Len or Rafael, > can you just revert that silly patch? Hi Yinghai, Per the following thread, the code seems to be written in this way to allocate a separate lock_class_key for each work queue. It should have had some comment to explain this, though. https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/13/304 Thanks, -Toshi > > Yinghai -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 11:28:25 AM Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com> wrote: > > > > Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that > > acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules. Looks like > > you have the same problem here. FYI, I just sent the following patch > > that exports acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() and acpi_os_hotplug_execute(). > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/1/225 > > acpi_os_hotplug_execute() does not like having good quality yet. > > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 941) /* > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 942) * We > can't run hotplug code in keventd_wq/kacpid_wq/kacpid_notify_wq > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 943) * > because the hotplug code may call driver .remove() functions, > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 944) * > which invoke flush_scheduled_work/acpi_os_wait_events_complete > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 945) * to > flush these workqueues. > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 946) */ > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 947) queue > = hp ? kacpi_hotplug_wq : > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 948) > (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq); > 9ac61856 (Bjorn Helgaas 2009-08-31 22:32:10 +0000 949) > dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0; > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 950) > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 951) if > (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq) > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 952) > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 953) else > if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq) > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 954) > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 955) else > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 956) > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 957) > > really don't know why checking queue and call same code in every branch. > > from comm: > > commit bc73675b99fd9850dd914be01d71af99c5d2a1ae > Author: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > Date: Mon Mar 22 15:48:54 2010 +0800 > > ACPI: fixes a false alarm from lockdep > > fixes a false alarm from lockdep, as acpi hotplug workqueue waits other > workqueues. > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14553 > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15521 > > Original-patch-from: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/osl.c b/drivers/acpi/osl.c > index 8e6d866..900da68 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/osl.c > @@ -758,7 +758,14 @@ static acpi_status > __acpi_os_execute(acpi_execute_type type, > queue = hp ? kacpi_hotplug_wq : > (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq); > dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0; > - INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > + > + if (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq) > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > + else if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq) > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > + else > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > + > ret = queue_work(queue, &dpc->work); > > if (!ret) { > > > Len or Rafael, > can you just revert that silly patch? We're removing this as per: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git;a=commit;h=77f1966ec9763e85e5f1a9202802e90c297b4c21 Thanks, Rafael
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > On Thursday, November 01, 2012 01:17:58 PM Toshi Kani wrote: >> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 11:28 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that >> > > acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules. Looks like >> > > you have the same problem here. FYI, I just sent the following patch >> > > that exports acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() and acpi_os_hotplug_execute(). >> > > >> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/1/225 >> > >> > acpi_os_hotplug_execute() does not like having good quality yet. >> > >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 941) /* >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 942) * We >> > can't run hotplug code in keventd_wq/kacpid_wq/kacpid_notify_wq >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 943) * >> > because the hotplug code may call driver .remove() functions, >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 944) * >> > which invoke flush_scheduled_work/acpi_os_wait_events_complete >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 945) * to >> > flush these workqueues. >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 946) */ >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 947) queue >> > = hp ? kacpi_hotplug_wq : >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 948) >> > (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq); >> > 9ac61856 (Bjorn Helgaas 2009-08-31 22:32:10 +0000 949) >> > dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0; >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 950) >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 951) if >> > (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq) >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 952) >> > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 953) else >> > if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq) >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 954) >> > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 955) else >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 956) >> > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 957) >> > >> > really don't know why checking queue and call same code in every branch. >> > >> > from comm: >> > >> > commit bc73675b99fd9850dd914be01d71af99c5d2a1ae >> > Author: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> >> > Date: Mon Mar 22 15:48:54 2010 +0800 >> > >> > ACPI: fixes a false alarm from lockdep >> > >> > fixes a false alarm from lockdep, as acpi hotplug workqueue waits other >> > workqueues. >> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14553 >> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15521 >> > >> > Original-patch-from: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> >> > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> >> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> >> > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/osl.c b/drivers/acpi/osl.c >> > index 8e6d866..900da68 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c >> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/osl.c >> > @@ -758,7 +758,14 @@ static acpi_status >> > __acpi_os_execute(acpi_execute_type type, >> > queue = hp ? kacpi_hotplug_wq : >> > (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq); >> > dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0; >> > - INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); >> > + >> > + if (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq) >> > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); >> > + else if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq) >> > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); >> > + else >> > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); >> > + >> > ret = queue_work(queue, &dpc->work); >> > >> > if (!ret) { >> > >> > >> > Len or Rafael, >> > can you just revert that silly patch? >> >> Hi Yinghai, >> >> Per the following thread, the code seems to be written in this way to >> allocate a separate lock_class_key for each work queue. It should have >> had some comment to explain this, though. >> >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/13/304 > > The code has evolved since then, however, so that it doesn't make sense > any more. > oh, no, that commit should not be reverted. instead we should add some comment for it... that mean : three path, will have three separated static lock dep key from every INIT_WORK. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 01:17:58 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 11:28 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com> wrote: > > > > > > Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that > > > acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules. Looks like > > > you have the same problem here. FYI, I just sent the following patch > > > that exports acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() and acpi_os_hotplug_execute(). > > > > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/1/225 > > > > acpi_os_hotplug_execute() does not like having good quality yet. > > > > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 941) /* > > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 942) * We > > can't run hotplug code in keventd_wq/kacpid_wq/kacpid_notify_wq > > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 943) * > > because the hotplug code may call driver .remove() functions, > > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 944) * > > which invoke flush_scheduled_work/acpi_os_wait_events_complete > > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 945) * to > > flush these workqueues. > > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 946) */ > > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 947) queue > > = hp ? kacpi_hotplug_wq : > > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 948) > > (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq); > > 9ac61856 (Bjorn Helgaas 2009-08-31 22:32:10 +0000 949) > > dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0; > > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 950) > > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 951) if > > (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq) > > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 952) > > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 953) else > > if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq) > > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 954) > > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 955) else > > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 956) > > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 957) > > > > really don't know why checking queue and call same code in every branch. > > > > from comm: > > > > commit bc73675b99fd9850dd914be01d71af99c5d2a1ae > > Author: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > > Date: Mon Mar 22 15:48:54 2010 +0800 > > > > ACPI: fixes a false alarm from lockdep > > > > fixes a false alarm from lockdep, as acpi hotplug workqueue waits other > > workqueues. > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14553 > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15521 > > > > Original-patch-from: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/osl.c b/drivers/acpi/osl.c > > index 8e6d866..900da68 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/osl.c > > @@ -758,7 +758,14 @@ static acpi_status > > __acpi_os_execute(acpi_execute_type type, > > queue = hp ? kacpi_hotplug_wq : > > (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq); > > dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0; > > - INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > > + > > + if (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq) > > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > > + else if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq) > > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > > + else > > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > > + > > ret = queue_work(queue, &dpc->work); > > > > if (!ret) { > > > > > > Len or Rafael, > > can you just revert that silly patch? > > Hi Yinghai, > > Per the following thread, the code seems to be written in this way to > allocate a separate lock_class_key for each work queue. It should have > had some comment to explain this, though. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/13/304 The code has evolved since then, however, so that it doesn't make sense any more. Thanks, Rafael
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 01:16:22 PM Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > > On Thursday, November 01, 2012 01:17:58 PM Toshi Kani wrote: > >> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 11:28 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Rafael pointed out in my CPU hot-remove patch that > >> > > acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() was not exported for modules. Looks like > >> > > you have the same problem here. FYI, I just sent the following patch > >> > > that exports acpi_bus_hot_remove_device() and acpi_os_hotplug_execute(). > >> > > > >> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/1/225 > >> > > >> > acpi_os_hotplug_execute() does not like having good quality yet. > >> > > >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 941) /* > >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 942) * We > >> > can't run hotplug code in keventd_wq/kacpid_wq/kacpid_notify_wq > >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 943) * > >> > because the hotplug code may call driver .remove() functions, > >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 944) * > >> > which invoke flush_scheduled_work/acpi_os_wait_events_complete > >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 945) * to > >> > flush these workqueues. > >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 946) */ > >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 947) queue > >> > = hp ? kacpi_hotplug_wq : > >> > c02256be (Zhang Rui 2009-06-23 10:20:29 +0800 948) > >> > (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq); > >> > 9ac61856 (Bjorn Helgaas 2009-08-31 22:32:10 +0000 949) > >> > dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0; > >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 950) > >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 951) if > >> > (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq) > >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 952) > >> > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 953) else > >> > if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq) > >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 954) > >> > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 955) else > >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 956) > >> > INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > >> > bc73675b (Zhang Rui 2010-03-22 15:48:54 +0800 957) > >> > > >> > really don't know why checking queue and call same code in every branch. > >> > > >> > from comm: > >> > > >> > commit bc73675b99fd9850dd914be01d71af99c5d2a1ae > >> > Author: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > >> > Date: Mon Mar 22 15:48:54 2010 +0800 > >> > > >> > ACPI: fixes a false alarm from lockdep > >> > > >> > fixes a false alarm from lockdep, as acpi hotplug workqueue waits other > >> > workqueues. > >> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14553 > >> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15521 > >> > > >> > Original-patch-from: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > >> > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> > >> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > >> > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> > >> > > >> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/osl.c b/drivers/acpi/osl.c > >> > index 8e6d866..900da68 100644 > >> > --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c > >> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/osl.c > >> > @@ -758,7 +758,14 @@ static acpi_status > >> > __acpi_os_execute(acpi_execute_type type, > >> > queue = hp ? kacpi_hotplug_wq : > >> > (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq); > >> > dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0; > >> > - INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > >> > + > >> > + if (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq) > >> > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > >> > + else if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq) > >> > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > >> > + else > >> > + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); > >> > + > >> > ret = queue_work(queue, &dpc->work); > >> > > >> > if (!ret) { > >> > > >> > > >> > Len or Rafael, > >> > can you just revert that silly patch? > >> > >> Hi Yinghai, > >> > >> Per the following thread, the code seems to be written in this way to > >> allocate a separate lock_class_key for each work queue. It should have > >> had some comment to explain this, though. > >> > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/13/304 > > > > The code has evolved since then, however, so that it doesn't make sense > > any more. > > > > oh, no, that commit should not be reverted. instead we should add some > comment for it... > > that mean : three path, will have three separated static lock dep key > from every INIT_WORK. I see. OK, I'll drop the patch removing it. What about the following comment: "To prevent lockdep from complaining unnecessarily, make sure that there is a different static lockdep key created for each workqueue by using INIT_WORK for each of them separately." Thanks, Rafael
> > >> Hi Yinghai, > > >> > > >> Per the following thread, the code seems to be written in this way to > > >> allocate a separate lock_class_key for each work queue. It should have > > >> had some comment to explain this, though. > > >> > > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/13/304 > > > > > > The code has evolved since then, however, so that it doesn't make sense > > > any more. > > > > > > > oh, no, that commit should not be reverted. instead we should add some > > comment for it... > > > > that mean : three path, will have three separated static lock dep key > > from every INIT_WORK. > > I see. > > OK, I'll drop the patch removing it. > > What about the following comment: > > "To prevent lockdep from complaining unnecessarily, make sure that there > is a different static lockdep key created for each workqueue by using > INIT_WORK for each of them separately." Looks good to me. Thanks, -Toshi > > Thanks, > Rafael > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: >> oh, no, that commit should not be reverted. instead we should add some >> comment for it... >> >> that mean : three path, will have three separated static lock dep key >> from every INIT_WORK. > > I see. > > OK, I'll drop the patch removing it. > > What about the following comment: > > "To prevent lockdep from complaining unnecessarily, make sure that there > is a different static lockdep key created for each workqueue by using > INIT_WORK for each of them separately." > created ? how about "defined" ? or just remove "created" -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/osl.c b/drivers/acpi/osl.c index 8e6d866..900da68 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/osl.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/osl.c @@ -758,7 +758,14 @@ static acpi_status __acpi_os_execute(acpi_execute_type type, queue = hp ? kacpi_hotplug_wq : (type == OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER ? kacpi_notify_wq : kacpid_wq); dpc->wait = hp ? 1 : 0; - INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); + + if (queue == kacpi_hotplug_wq) + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); + else if (queue == kacpi_notify_wq) + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); + else + INIT_WORK(&dpc->work, acpi_os_execute_deferred); + ret = queue_work(queue, &dpc->work);