[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5455BFF4.6040401@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 13:24:04 +0800
From: Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
x86@...nel.org, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v7 14/18] x86, irq, ACPI: Introduce a rwsem to protect
IOAPIC operations from hotplug
On 2014/11/2 2:59, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Jiang Liu wrote:
>> We are going to support ACPI based IOAPIC hotplug, so introduce a rwsem
>> to protect IOAPIC data structures from IOAPIC hotplug. We choose to
>> serialize in ACPI instead of in the IOAPIC core because:
>> 1) currently we are only plan to support ACPI based IOAPIC hotplug
>> 2) it's much more cleaner and easier
>> 3) It does't affect IOAPIC discovered by devicetree, SFI and mpparse.
>
> I had a last intensive look at this series as I was about to merge
> it. So I looked at the locking rules here again
>
>> +/*
>> + * Locks related to IOAPIC hotplug
>> + * Hotplug side:
>> + * ->lock_device_hotplug() //device_hotplug_lock
>> + * ->acpi_ioapic_rwsem
>> + * ->ioapic_lock
>> + * Interrupt mapping side:
>> + * ->acpi_ioapic_rwsem
>> + * ->ioapic_mutex
>> + * ->ioapic_lock
>> + */
>
> This looks sane, but I cannot figure out at all why this needs to be a
> rwsem.
>
>> +static DECLARE_RWSEM(acpi_ioapic_rwsem);
>
> I think it should be a simple mutex because the rwsem does not protect
> against concurrent execution what taken for read.
>
> And the site which takes it for write is in the early boot process
> where nothing runs in parallel AFAICT.
Hi Thomas,
You are right. It's not on hot path, so a mutex is better than
a rwsem here. I will send out an updated version soon.
Regards!
Gerry
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
--
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