|
|
not sure if u read this. but this helps to understand the new module manage in 2.6
http://his.luky.org/ftp/mirrors/linux/kernel/people/rusty/modules/FAQ
---------------
Golden Rule: If you are calling though a function pointer into a
(different) module, you must hold a reference to that module.
Otherwise you risk sleeping in the module while it is unloaded.
Q: How do I get a reference to a module?
A: Usually, a successful call to try_module_get(owner). You don't
need to check for owner != NULL, BTW.
Q: When does try_module_get(owner) fail?
A: When the module is not ready to be entered (ie. still in
init_module) or it is being removed. This prevents you
entering the module as it is being discarded (init might fail, or
it's being removed).
Q: But the modules' init routine calls my register() routine which
wants to call back into one of the function pointers immediately,
and so try_module_get() fails! (because the module is not finished
initializing yet)
A: You're being called from the module, so someone already has a
reference (unless there's a bug), so you don't need a
try_module_get().
This does mean that if you were to register a structure for
*another* module (does anyone do this?) you'd need to have a
reference to it.
Q: How do I put the reference back?
A: Using module_put(owner) (owner == NULL is OK).
Q: Do I really need to put try_module_get() before every function ptr
call?
A: If the function does not sleep (any cannot be preempted) ie. is
called in softirq or hardirq context, you can omit this step, since
you obviously won't sleep inside the module.
Also, most structs have clear "start" and "stop" functions
(eg. mount/umount), so you only need one try_module_get()
on start, and module_put() on stop.
Q: Is it safe to call try_module_get() and module_put() from an
interrtupt / softirq?
A: Yes.
Q: My code use "MOD_INC_USE_COUNT". Do I still need to adjust my
module count when someone calls one of my functions?
A: No, you never need to adjust your own module count. There are five
ways a function in your module can get called: firstly, it could be
your module_init() function, in which case the module code holds a
reference. It could be another module using one of your
EXPORT_SYMBOL'ed functions, in which case you cannot be removed
since they would have to be removed first. It could be a module
which found an EXPORT_SYMBOL'ed function using symbol_get(), in
which case they hold a reference count. It could be through a
function pointer which your module gave out previously, which is
discussed above. Finally, it could be from within your own module,
in which case someone must already hold a reference.
Q: My code uses "__MOD_INC_USE_COUNT(reg->owner)", but now I get a
warning at runtime that it is unsafe. What do I need to do?
A: You need to use try_module_get(), and not call into the module if
it fails (act as if it hasn't registered yet). Note that you no
longer need to check for NULL yourself, try_module_get() does that.
Q: My code used "GET_USE_COUNT(module)" to get the reference count.
A: Don't do that. If module unloading is disabled, there is no
reference count, and there is never a single value you can assign
to.
Q: My code used "try_inc_mod_count(module)" to get the reference
count. Should I change it?
A: No hurry. try_module_get() is exactly the same: the new name
reflects that this is now the only way to get a reference.
Q: How does the code in try_module_get() work?
A: It disables preemption for a moment, checks the live flag, and then
increments a per-cpu counter if the module is live. This is even
lighter-weight (in icache and cycles) than using a brlock, but has
the same effect. If CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD=n, it just becomes a
check that the module is live.
Q: How does the module remove code work?
A: It stops the machine by scheduling threads for every other CPU,
then they all disable interrupts. At this stage we know that noone
is in try_module_get(), so we can reliably read the counter. If
zero, or the rmmod user specified --wait, we set the live flag to
false. After this, the reference count should not increase, and
each module_put() will wake us up, so we can check the counter
again.
Q: Are these changes all so you could implement an in-kernel module
linker?
A: No, they were to prevent load and unload races without altering
every module, nor introducing drastic new requirements.
Q: Doesn't putting linking code into the kernel just add bloat?
A: The total linking code is about 200 generic lines, 100
x86-specific lines. The ia64 linking code is about 500 lines (it's
the most complex). Richard Henderson has a great suggestion for
simplifying it furthur, which I'm implementing now. "insmod" is
now a single portable system call, meaning insmod can be written in
about 20 lines of code.
The previous code had to implement the two module loading
system calls, the module querying system call, and the /proc/ksyms
output, required a little more code than the current x86 linker.
Q: Why not just fix the old code?
A: Because having something so intimate with the kernel in userspace
greatly restricts what changes the kernel can make. Moving into
the kernel means I have implemented modversions, typesafe
extensible module parameters and kallsyms without altering
userspace in any way. Future extensions won't have to worry about
the version of modutils problem.
Q: Why not implement two-stage insert / two-stage delete?
A: Because I implemented it first and it sucked. And because this
*is* two-stage insert and two-stage delete, without exposing it to
the modules using it, with the added advantage that the second
stage is atomic (activation/deactivation is simply changing
mod->live, modulo locking implementation magic detailed above).
This prevents the race between deactivating the module and finding
that someone has starting using it as you are deactivating it. |
|
IP卡
狗仔卡
发表于 2003-10-27 22:55:16
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
显身卡
发表于 2005-6-6 18:08:51