From: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>
To: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: Pratyush Yadav <pratyush@kernel.org>,
Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, brauner@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net,
graf@amazon.com, jgg@ziepe.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
masahiroy@kernel.org, ojeda@kernel.org, rdunlap@infradead.org,
tj@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 3/7] kho: drop notifiers
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:39:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mafs01pmsfxkh.fsf@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aPsZzxmGjrJSzB4q@kernel.org> (Mike Rapoport's message of "Fri, 24 Oct 2025 09:16:47 +0300")
On Fri, Oct 24 2025, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 01:01:08PM +0200, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
>> Hi Pasha,
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 21 2025, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
>>
>> > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@kernel.org>
>> >
>> > The KHO framework uses a notifier chain as the mechanism for clients to
>> > participate in the finalization process. While this works for a single,
>> > central state machine, it is too restrictive for kernel-internal
>> > components like pstore/reserve_mem or IMA. These components need a
>> > simpler, direct way to register their state for preservation (e.g.,
>> > during their initcall) without being part of a complex,
>> > shutdown-time notifier sequence. The notifier model forces all
>> > participants into a single finalization flow and makes direct
>> > preservation from an arbitrary context difficult.
>> > This patch refactors the client participation model by removing the
>> > notifier chain and introducing a direct API for managing FDT subtrees.
>> >
>> > The core kho_finalize() and kho_abort() state machine remains, but
>> > clients now register their data with KHO beforehand.
>> >
>
> ...
>
>> > @@ -1280,7 +1298,7 @@ static __init int kho_init(void)
>> > kho_enable = false;
>> > return err;
>> > }
>> > -late_initcall(kho_init);
>> > +fs_initcall(kho_init);
>>
>> Is this change related to this patch? Also, why fs_initcall?
>
> memblock registers sub-fdt in late_initcall(), so we should have the root
> fdt ready by then.
I see. Should this be even earlier then? Other components might also
depend on KHO being initialized, and those might be at or before
fs_initcall.
For example, LUO does its init using early_initcall and uses KHO, even
before it is initialized [0]. This works because kho_retrieve_subtree()
only uses parts initialized very early in boot (the KHO FDT), but I
suppose we want to have a proper initialization order to not rely on
things that just happen to work until they don't.
Since kho_init() has a dependency on debugfs, which gets initialized in
core_initcall, I guess the earliest it can be is postcore_initcall. Or,
we split out the debugfs parts into a separate init function (they have
their own file anyway) and initialize "core KHO" in early_initcall? Then
LUO can be in core_initcall and all its users in later ones.
Thoughts?
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250929010321.3462457-9-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com/
--
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-24 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-22 0:57 [PATCHv7 0/7] liveupdate: Rework KHO for in-kernel users Pasha Tatashin
2025-10-22 0:57 ` [PATCHv7 1/7] kho: allow to drive kho from within kernel Pasha Tatashin
2025-10-23 7:13 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-10-22 0:57 ` [PATCHv7 2/7] kho: make debugfs interface optional Pasha Tatashin
2025-10-22 10:31 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-10-22 0:57 ` [PATCHv7 3/7] kho: drop notifiers Pasha Tatashin
2025-10-22 11:01 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-10-24 6:16 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-10-24 9:39 ` Pratyush Yadav [this message]
2025-10-24 13:11 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-10-24 15:50 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-10-24 15:52 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-10-24 16:15 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-10-24 16:32 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-10-22 0:57 ` [PATCHv7 4/7] kho: add interfaces to unpreserve folios and page ranges Pasha Tatashin
2025-10-22 11:10 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-10-24 13:18 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-10-23 7:17 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-10-22 0:57 ` [PATCHv7 5/7] kho: don't unpreserve memory during abort Pasha Tatashin
2025-10-22 11:15 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-10-23 7:20 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-10-24 13:28 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-10-24 15:27 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-10-24 15:33 ` Pasha Tatashin
2025-10-24 15:48 ` Pratyush Yadav
2025-10-22 0:57 ` [PATCHv7 6/7] liveupdate: kho: move to kernel/liveupdate Pasha Tatashin
2025-10-22 0:57 ` [PATCHv7 7/7] liveupdate: kho: move kho debugfs directory to liveupdate Pasha Tatashin
2025-10-23 7:32 ` Mike Rapoport
2025-10-24 13:33 ` Pasha Tatashin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=mafs01pmsfxkh.fsf@kernel.org \
--to=pratyush@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=graf@amazon.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox