On 10/20/2014 11:46 PM, Philippe Rétornaz wrote:
Hello
[...]
- Use raw notifiers protected by spinlocks instead of atomic notifiers
[...]
+/**
+ * do_kernel_power_off - Execute kernel poweroff handler call chain
+ *
+ * Calls functions registered with register_power_off_handler.
+ *
+ * Expected to be called from machine_power_off as last step of
+ * the poweroff sequence.
+ *
+ * Powers off the system immediately if a poweroff handler function
+ * has been registered. Otherwise does nothing.
+ */
+void do_kernel_power_off(void)
+{
+ spin_lock(&power_off_handler_lock);
+ raw_notifier_call_chain(&power_off_handler_list, 0, NULL);
+ spin_unlock(&power_off_handler_lock);
+}
I don't get it. You are still in atomic context inside the poweroff callback
since you lock it with a spinlock.
It does not change much from the atomic notifier which was doing exactly the
same thing but with RCU:
rcu_read_lock();
ret = notifier_call_chain(&nh->head, val, v, nr_to_call, nr_calls);
rcu_read_unlock();
Why not using the blocking_notifier_* family ?
It will lock with a read-write semaphore under which you can sleep.
For instance, twl4030_power_off will sleep, since it is doing I2C access.
So you cannot call it in atomic context.
Learning something new all the time. I assumed that spin_lock (unlike
spin_lock_irqsafe) would not run in atomic context.
I did not want to use a sleeping lock because I am not sure if that
works for all architectures; some disable (local) interrupts before
calling the function (eg arm and arm64), and I don't want to change
that semantics.
I have another idea how to get there without changing the lock situation
while executing the call chain - just set a flag indicating that it is
running and execute it without lock. Would that work ?
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
