linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] cpufreq: covert the cpufreq_data

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8666267.Du60305uqJ@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:48:07 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
Cc:	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] cpufreq: covert the cpufreq_data_lock to a spinlock

On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:34:21 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 2 April 2013 06:26, Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 10:41:27PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Monday, April 01, 2013 03:11:09 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> >> > This eliminates the rest of the contention found in __cpufreq_cpu_get.
> >> > I am not seeing a way to use the rcu so we will have to make due with a
> >> > rwlock for now.
> >> >
> >> > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> >> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
> >>
> >> I've already applied this one.
> >>
> >> Can you please check if the version in my tree is OK?
> >>
> >> Rafael
> >>
> >
> > Nope, the previous version was too different, probably best to just replace it.
> 
> Nathan,
> 
> First of all I should accept that I didn't had your last patch while
> reviewing this
> one earlier. Thanks Rafael.
> 
> Now, I believe the previous patch which Rafael has pushed was good and we
> can simply keep it. What you can do is, just add a patch over it (which would
> mostly be 1/2 of your patchset), that simply separates rcu stuff out of the lock
> and leave lock for cpufreq_data..

Yeah, I'd very much prefer that.

Nathan, I'm going to keep the rwlock patch unless it is demonstrably incorrect.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/