On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 10:11:26PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > + queue_work(system_unbound_wq, >attach_work->work);
>
> Tejun,
>
> based on my testing so far using system_highpri_wq instead of
> system_unbound_wq
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> + queue_work(system_unbound_wq, >attach_work->work);
Tejun,
based on my testing so far using system_highpri_wq instead of
system_unbound_wq yields close to par / better boot times
than synchronous probe support for all
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 08:12:37AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>>> Making kmod a special case is of course possible. However, as long as
>>> there is no fundamental reason why kmod
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 08:12:37AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> Making kmod a special case is of course possible. However, as long as
>> there is no fundamental reason why kmod should get this special
>> treatment, this just looks like
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 08:12:37AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
Making kmod a special case is of course possible. However, as long as
there is no fundamental reason why kmod should get this special
treatment, this just
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote:
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 08:12:37AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
Making kmod a special case is of course possible. However, as long as
there is no
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
+ queue_work(system_unbound_wq, priv-attach_work-work);
Tejun,
based on my testing so far using system_highpri_wq instead of
system_unbound_wq yields close to par / better boot times
than synchronous probe support for all
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 10:11:26PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
+ queue_work(system_unbound_wq, priv-attach_work-work);
Tejun,
based on my testing so far using system_highpri_wq instead of
system_unbound_wq yields
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:15:55AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Can you provide an example code path hit here? I'll certainly like to address
> that as well.
I managed to enable built-in driver support on top of this series,
I'll send them as part of the next series but I suspect we'll want
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:21:59AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:26:01PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello, Luis.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:22:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > > + /* For now lets avoid stupid bug reports */
> > > > > +
As per Tom, adding systemd-devel for advice / review / of the request to avoid
the sigkill for kmod workers. Keeping others on Cc as its a discussion that
I think can help if both camps are involved. Specially since we've been
ping ponging back and forth on this particular topic for a long time
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> > commit e64fae5573e566ce4fd9b23c68ac8f3096603314
>> > Author: Kay Sievers
>> > Date: Wed Jan 18 05:06:18 2012 +0100
>> >
>> > udevd: kill hanging event processes after 30 seconds
>> >
>> > Some broken kernel drivers load
As per Tom, adding systemd-devel for advice / review / of the request to avoid
the sigkill for kmod workers. Keeping others on Cc as its a discussion that
I think can help if both camps are involved. Specially since we've been
ping ponging back and forth on this particular topic for a long time
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:21:59AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:26:01PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Luis.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:22:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
+ /* For now lets avoid stupid bug reports */
+ if
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 09:15:55AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
Can you provide an example code path hit here? I'll certainly like to address
that as well.
I managed to enable built-in driver support on top of this series,
I'll send them as part of the next series but I suspect we'll want
to
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com wrote:
commit e64fae5573e566ce4fd9b23c68ac8f3096603314
Author: Kay Sievers kay.siev...@vrfy.org
Date: Wed Jan 18 05:06:18 2012 +0100
udevd: kill hanging event processes after 30 seconds
Some broken kernel
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:22:14AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 07:07:24PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> >> wrote:
> >> > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
>
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 07:07:24PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
>> wrote:
>> > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
>> > Systemd has a general timeout for all workers currently set to 180
>> >
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 04:27:51AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 07:07:24PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> > wrote:
> > > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
> > > 0) Not all drivers are killed, the signal is just sent and
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:26:01PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Luis.
>
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:22:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > + /* For now lets avoid stupid bug reports */
> > > > + if (!strcmp(bus->name, "pci") ||
> > > > + !strcmp(bus->name,
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:22:47PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > +static bool drv_enable_async_probe(struct device_driver *drv,
> > + struct bus_type *bus)
> > +{
> > + struct
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:22:47PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
Hi Luis,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
+static bool drv_enable_async_probe(struct device_driver *drv,
+ struct bus_type *bus)
+{
+ struct module *mod;
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:26:01PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Luis.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:22:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
+ /* For now lets avoid stupid bug reports */
+ if (!strcmp(bus-name, pci) ||
+ !strcmp(bus-name, pci_express) ||
+
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 04:27:51AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 07:07:24PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
mcg...@do-not-panic.com wrote:
From: Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com
0) Not all drivers are killed, the
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 07:07:24PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
mcg...@do-not-panic.com wrote:
From: Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com
Systemd has a general timeout
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:22:14AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 07:07:24PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
mcg...@do-not-panic.com wrote:
From:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 07:07:24PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> wrote:
> > From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
> > Systemd has a general timeout for all workers currently set to 180
> > seconds after which it will send a sigkill signal. Systemd now
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 03:10:22PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >> Sure make sense, I wasn't quite sure how to make this quite clear,
> >> a naming convention seems good to me but I also had added at least
> >> a print about this on the log.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> Sure make sense, I wasn't quite sure how to make this quite clear,
>> a naming convention seems good to me but I also had added at least
>> a print about this on the log. Ideally I think a TAIN_DEBUG would
>> be best and it seems it could be
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:22:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:03:29AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > ...
> > > Systemd should consider enabling async probe on device drivers
> > >
Hello, Luis.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:22:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > + /* For now lets avoid stupid bug reports */
> > > + if (!strcmp(bus->name, "pci") ||
> > > + !strcmp(bus->name, "pci_express") ||
> > > + !strcmp(bus->name, "hid") ||
> > > + !strcmp(bus->name,
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:03:29AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> ...
> > Systemd should consider enabling async probe on device drivers
> > it loads through systemd-udev but probably does not want to
> > enable it for
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:03:29AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
...
Systemd should consider enabling async probe on device drivers
it loads through systemd-udev but probably does not want to
enable it for modules
Hello, Luis.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:22:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
+ /* For now lets avoid stupid bug reports */
+ if (!strcmp(bus-name, pci) ||
+ !strcmp(bus-name, pci_express) ||
+ !strcmp(bus-name, hid) ||
+ !strcmp(bus-name, sdio) ||
+
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:22:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:03:29AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
...
Systemd should consider enabling async probe on device drivers
it loads
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Sure make sense, I wasn't quite sure how to make this quite clear,
a naming convention seems good to me but I also had added at least
a print about this on the log. Ideally I think a TAIN_DEBUG would
be best and it
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 03:10:22PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Greg KH gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Sure make sense, I wasn't quite sure how to make this quite clear,
a naming convention seems good to me but I also had added at least
a print about
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 07:07:24PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
mcg...@do-not-panic.com wrote:
From: Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com
Systemd has a general timeout for all workers currently set to 180
seconds after which it will send a
Hi Luis,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> +static bool drv_enable_async_probe(struct device_driver *drv,
> +struct bus_type *bus)
> +{
> + struct module *mod;
> +
> + if (!drv->owner || drv->sync_probe)
> +
Hi Luis,
Thanks for the patches and the detailed analysis.
Feel free to add
Acked-by: Tom Gundersen
Minor comments on the commit message below.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
wrote:
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
>
> Some init systems may wish to express the desire to
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
...
> Systemd should consider enabling async probe on device drivers
> it loads through systemd-udev but probably does not want to
> enable it for modules loaded through systemd-modules-load
> (modules-load.d). At least on
Hello,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
...
Systemd should consider enabling async probe on device drivers
it loads through systemd-udev but probably does not want to
enable it for modules loaded through systemd-modules-load
(modules-load.d). At least on my
Hi Luis,
Thanks for the patches and the detailed analysis.
Feel free to add
Acked-by: Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no
Minor comments on the commit message below.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
mcg...@do-not-panic.com wrote:
From: Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com
Some init
Hi Luis,
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 02:57:17PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
+static bool drv_enable_async_probe(struct device_driver *drv,
+struct bus_type *bus)
+{
+ struct module *mod;
+
+ if (!drv-owner || drv-sync_probe)
+ return
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
Some init systems may wish to express the desire to have
device drivers run their device driver's bus probe() run
asynchronously. This implements support for this and
allows userspace to request async probe as a preference
through a generic shared device driver module
From: Luis R. Rodriguez mcg...@suse.com
Some init systems may wish to express the desire to have
device drivers run their device driver's bus probe() run
asynchronously. This implements support for this and
allows userspace to request async probe as a preference
through a generic shared device
46 matches
Mail list logo
