[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [xen] double fault: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:19:20AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 03:23:45AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote: >> > >> > > I think David Arlie also needs a quiet talking to about how to use the >> > > device model: >> > > >> > > int drm_sysfs_device_add(struct drm_minor *minor) >> > > { >> > > minor->kdev.release = drm_sysfs_device_release; >> > > ... >> > > err = device_register(&minor->kdev); >> > > } >> > > >> > > static void drm_sysfs_device_release(struct device *dev) >> > > { >> > > memset(dev, 0, sizeof(struct device)); >> > > return; >> > > } >> > > >> > > Since when has that been acceptable in a release function? >> > >> > Well the commit that added it had a reason that seems to cover some other >> > device model abuses, so maybe someone who actually understands the device >> > model (all 2 people) can review usage. >> >> Please - there's more than two people who understand this stuff. >> >> You appear to manage to understand the refcounting principle for things >> like the DRM framebuffers, DRM buffer objects etc, and the driver model >> (and kobjects in general) are no different. >> >> I've just been reading the code around here little more, and hit the usb >> implementation. I don't see how USB drivers get cleaned up when they're >> disconnected from the USB bus. I see drm_unplug_dev() which gets called >> on a USB disconnection (from udl/udl_drv.c) which effectively makes the >> device unavailable, but I don't see anything which frees anything. I see >> nothing calling drm_put_dev() here. How does the drm_device in this case >> get freed? > > Don't worry about the above - I've worked out how USB works in that regard. > However, I can't say that I like the feel of the code in drm_unplug_dev() > and drm_put_dev() - if these two can run simultaneously in two threads of > execution, there's the chance that things will go awry. I don't think > that can happen due to the way the unplugged-ness is dealt with, but it > doesn't "feel" safe. > > I think something like the below may address the issue - I've only build > tested this so far. > > We have another case where DRM does the wrong thing here too - a similar > thing goes on with connectors as well. I've not yet looked into this, > but I'll take a look later today. > Damn gmail screwed up my reply-all, anyhoo I get the feeling I'd rather do this like fbdev does and stop using an embedded kdev for this if I can. The lifetime of the minor and the sysfs objects aren't necessarily that tied together esp with hot unplug of USB devices. e.g. when a USB device goes away I don't want the sysfs files to remain hanging around, or the userspace device nodes, however I can't remove all the internal driver state until userspace finally closes all open device files, I think this is a bit of a bad misdesign of the whole device api that sysfs exposure and device exposure is tied to objects you are encourgaged to embed. I think maybe I'll just copy fbdev and do a separate device_create with a nonembedded dev. Dave. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |