| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <53296870.5010505@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:20:40 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
amit.daniel@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [RFC V2] cpufreq: make sure frequency transitions are serialized
On 03/19/2014 11:38 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 18 March 2014 18:20, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> On 03/14/2014 01:13 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> + if ((state != CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE) && (state != CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE))
>>
>> Wait a min, when is this condition ever true? I mean, what else can
>> 'state' ever be, apart from CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE and POSTCHANGE?
>
> There were two more 'unused' states available:
> CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE and CPUFREQ_SUSPENDCHANGE
>
> I have sent a patch to remove them now and this code would go away..
>
>>> + return notify_transition_for_each_cpu(policy, freqs, state);
>>> +
>>> + /* Serialize pre-post notifications */
>>> + mutex_lock(&policy->transition_lock);
>>
>> Nope, this is definitely not the way to go, IMHO. We should enforce that
>> the *callers* serialize the transitions, something like this:
>>
>> cpufreq_transition_lock();
>>
>> cpufreq_notify_transition(CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE);
>>
>> //Perform the frequency change
>>
>> cpufreq_notify_transition(CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE);
>>
>> cpufreq_transition_unlock();
>>
>> That's it!
>>
>> [ We can either introduce a new "transition" lock or perhaps even reuse
>> the cpufreq_driver_lock if it fits... but the point is, the _caller_ has
>> to perform the locking; trying to be smart inside cpufreq_notify_transition()
>> is a recipe for headache :-( ]
>>
>> Is there any problem with this approach due to which you didn't take
>> this route?
>
> I didn't wanted drivers to handle this as core must make sure things are in
> order. Over that it would have helped by not pasting redundant code
> everywhere..
>
> Drivers are anyway going to call cpufreq_notify_transition(), why increase
> burden on them?
>
No, its not about burden. Its about the elegance of the design. We should
not be overly "smart" in the cpufreq core. Hiding the synchronization inside
the cpufreq core only encourages people to write buggy code in their drivers.
Why don't we go with what Rafael suggested? We can have dedicated
begin_transition() and end_transition() calls to demarcate the frequency
transitions. That way, it makes it very clear how the synchronization is
done. Of course, these functions would be provided (exported) by the cpufreq
core, by implementing them using locks/counters/whatever.
Basically what I'm arguing against, is the idea of having the cpufreq
core figure out what the driver _intended_ to do, from inside the
cpufreq_notify_transition() call.
What I would prefer instead is to have the cpufreq driver do something
like this:
cpufreq_freq_transition_begin();
cpufreq_notify_transition(CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE);
//perform the frequency change
cpufreq_notify_transition(CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE);
cpufreq_freq_transition_end();
[ASYNC_NOTIFICATION drivers will invoke the last two functions in a
separate context/thread.]
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>> + if (unlikely(WARN_ON(!policy->transition_ongoing &&
>>> + (state == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE)))) {
>>> + mutex_unlock(&policy->transition_lock);
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (state == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE) {
>>> + while (policy->transition_ongoing) {
>>> + mutex_unlock(&policy->transition_lock);
>>> + /* TODO: Can we do something better here? */
>>> + cpu_relax();
>>> + mutex_lock(&policy->transition_lock);
>>
>> If the caller takes care of the synchronization, we can avoid
>> these sorts of acrobatics ;-)
>
> If we are fine with taking a mutex for the entire transition, then
> we can avoid above kind of acrobatics by just taking the mutex
> from PRECHANGE and leaving it at POSTCHANGE..
>
> It will look like this then, hope this looks fine :)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 2677ff1..3b9eac4 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -335,8 +335,15 @@ static void __cpufreq_notify_transition(struct
> cpufreq_policy *policy,
> void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs, unsigned int state)
> {
> + if (state == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE)
> + mutex_lock(&policy->transition_lock);
> +
> + /* Send notifications */
> for_each_cpu(freqs->cpu, policy->cpus)
> __cpufreq_notify_transition(policy, freqs, state);
> +
> + if (state == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE)
> + mutex_unlock(&policy->transition_lock);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_notify_transition);
>
> @@ -983,6 +990,7 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_policy_alloc(void)
>
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&policy->policy_list);
> init_rwsem(&policy->rwsem);
> + mutex_init(&policy->transition_lock);
>
> return policy;
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> index 31c431e..5f9209a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> @@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ struct cpufreq_policy {
> * __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT);
> */
> struct rw_semaphore rwsem;
> + struct mutex transition_lock;
> };
--
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