lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC v3] cpufreq: Make sure frequency transitions are serialized
On 03/20/2014 02:07 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 20 March 2014 14:02, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index 199b52b..5283f10 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -349,6 +349,39 @@ void cpufreq_notify_post_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_notify_post_transition);
>>
>>
>> +void cpufreq_freq_transition_begin(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> + struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs, unsigned int state)
>> +{
>> +wait:
>> + wait_event(&policy->transition_wait, !policy->transition_ongoing);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&policy->transition_lock);
>> +
>> + if (policy->transition_ongoing) {
>> + mutex_unlock(&policy->transition_lock);
>> + goto wait;
>> + }
>> +
>> + policy->transition_ongoing = true;
>> +
>> + mutex_unlock(&policy->transition_lock);
>> +
>> + cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, freqs, CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE);
>> +}
>> +
>> +void cpufreq_freq_transition_end(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> + struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs, unsigned int state)
>> +{
>> + cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, freqs, CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&policy->transition_lock);
>
> Why do we need locking here? You explained that earlier :)
>

Hmm.. I had thought of some complex race condition which would make
tasks miss the wake-up event and sleep forever, and hence added
the locking there to prevent that. But now that I think more closely,
I'm not able to recall that race... I will give some more thought to
it and if I can't find any loopholes in doing the second update to
the ongoing flag without locks, then I'll post the patchset with
that lockless version itself.

> Also, I would like to add this here:
>
> WARN_ON(policy->transition_ongoing);
>

Hmm? Won't it always be true? We are the ones who set that flag to
true earlier, right? I guess you meant WARN_ON(!policy->transition_ongoing)
perhaps? I'm not sure whether its really worth it, because it kinda looks
obvious. Not sure what kind of bugs it would catch. I can't think of any
such scenario :-(

>> + policy->transition_ongoing = false;
>> + mutex_unlock(&policy->transition_lock);
>> +
>> + wake_up(&policy->transition_wait);
>> +}
>

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-03-20 11:02    [W:0.065 / U:1.612 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site