[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52F3B2DF.3070104@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 21:35:51 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
CC: paulus@...ba.org, oleg@...hat.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...nel.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tj@...nel.org, walken@...gle.com,
ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 35/51] acpi-cpufreq: Fix CPU hotplug callback registration
On 02/06/2014 06:13 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, February 06, 2014 03:40:53 AM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> Subsystems that want to register CPU hotplug callbacks, as well as perform
>> initialization for the CPUs that are already online, often do it as shown
>> below:
>>
>> get_online_cpus();
>>
>> for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>> init_cpu(cpu);
>>
>> register_cpu_notifier(&foobar_cpu_notifier);
>>
>> put_online_cpus();
>>
>> This is wrong, since it is prone to ABBA deadlocks involving the
>> cpu_add_remove_lock and the cpu_hotplug.lock (when running concurrently
>> with CPU hotplug operations).
>>
>> Instead, the correct and race-free way of performing the callback
>> registration is:
>>
>> cpu_maps_update_begin();
>>
>> for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
>> init_cpu(cpu);
>>
>> /* Note the use of the double underscored version of the API */
>> __register_cpu_notifier(&foobar_cpu_notifier);
>>
>> cpu_maps_update_done();
>>
>>
>> Fix the acpi-cpufreq code by using this latter form of callback registration.
>>
>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
>> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
>> Cc: cpufreq@...r.kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Looks OK to me. How does it depend on the rest of your series?
>
Thank you! Same here, every patch depends only on the first patch in
the series. (Except the raid5 and the xen/balloon patches which don't
have any dependency).
But I'll be posting a v2 of this patchset soon with a rename of the
API..
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
>> ---
>>
>> drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 7 ++++---
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
>> index 18448a7..e2eb471 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -907,15 +907,16 @@ static void __init acpi_cpufreq_boost_init(void)
>>
>> acpi_cpufreq_driver.boost_supported = true;
>> acpi_cpufreq_driver.boost_enabled = boost_state(0);
>> - get_online_cpus();
>> +
>> + cpu_maps_update_begin();
>>
>> /* Force all MSRs to the same value */
>> boost_set_msrs(acpi_cpufreq_driver.boost_enabled,
>> cpu_online_mask);
>>
>> - register_cpu_notifier(&boost_nb);
>> + __register_cpu_notifier(&boost_nb);
>>
>> - put_online_cpus();
>> + cpu_maps_update_done();
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists