[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpok0UieH=Pi4nU2tKqV1_LH+3uzMDr0B8wsN61g1BnG4pg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:06:17 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] PM / OPP: take RCU lock in dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count
On 17 December 2014 at 04:39, Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org> wrote:
> A lot of callers are missing the fact that dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count
> needs to be called under RCU lock. Given that RCU locks can safely be
> nested, instead of providing *_locked() API, let's take RCU lock inside
Hmm, I asked for a *_locked() API because many users of
dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count() are already calling it from rcu read side
critical sections.
Now, there are two questions:
- Can rcu-read side critical sections be nested ?
Yes, this is what the comment over rcu_read_lock() says
* RCU read-side critical sections may be nested. Any deferred actions
* will be deferred until the outermost RCU read-side critical section
* completes.
- Would it be better to drop these double rcu_read_locks() ? i.e. either
get a *_locked() API or fix the callers of dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count().
@Paul: What do you say ?
> dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count() and leave callers as is.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...omium.org>
> ---
> drivers/base/power/opp.c | 15 ++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp.c b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> index 413c7fe..ee5eca2 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> @@ -216,9 +216,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_opp_get_freq);
> * This function returns the number of available opps if there are any,
> * else returns 0 if none or the corresponding error value.
> *
> - * Locking: This function must be called under rcu_read_lock(). This function
> - * internally references two RCU protected structures: device_opp and opp which
> - * are safe as long as we are under a common RCU locked section.
> + * Locking: This function takes rcu_read_lock().
> */
> int dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(struct device *dev)
> {
> @@ -226,13 +224,14 @@ int dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(struct device *dev)
> struct dev_pm_opp *temp_opp;
> int count = 0;
>
> - opp_rcu_lockdep_assert();
> + rcu_read_lock();
>
> dev_opp = find_device_opp(dev);
> if (IS_ERR(dev_opp)) {
> - int r = PTR_ERR(dev_opp);
> - dev_err(dev, "%s: device OPP not found (%d)\n", __func__, r);
> - return r;
> + count = PTR_ERR(dev_opp);
> + dev_err(dev, "%s: device OPP not found (%d)\n",
> + __func__, count);
> + goto out_unlock;
> }
>
> list_for_each_entry_rcu(temp_opp, &dev_opp->opp_list, node) {
> @@ -240,6 +239,8 @@ int dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(struct device *dev)
> count++;
> }
>
> +out_unlock:
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> return count;
> }
Looked fine otherwise:
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
--
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