[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151014170739.GB2998@e104805>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:07:39 +0100
From: Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>
To: "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"edubezval@...il.com" <edubezval@...il.com>,
"Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"Pandruvada, Srinivas" <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Thermal: do thermal zone update after a cooling
device registered
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 09:23:28AM +0000, Chen, Yu C wrote:
> Hi, Javi
> Sorry for my late response,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Javi Merino [mailto:javi.merino@....com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 12:02 AM
> > To: Chen, Yu C
> > Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org; edubezval@...il.com; Zhang, Rui; linux-
> > kernel@...r.kernel.org; stable@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Thermal: do thermal zone update after a cooling
> > device registered
> >
> > Hi Yu,
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 06:52:00PM +0100, Chen, Yu C wrote:
> > > Hi, Javi,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Javi Merino [mailto:javi.merino@....com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 10:29 PM
> > > > To: Chen, Yu C
> > > > Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org; edubezval@...il.com; Zhang, Rui;
> > > > linux- kernel@...r.kernel.org; stable@...r.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Thermal: do thermal zone update after a
> > > > cooling device registered
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 06:48:44AM +0100, Chen Yu wrote:
> > > > > From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think you need to hold cdev->lock here, to make sure that no
> > > > thermal zone is added or removed from cdev->thermal_instances while
> > you are looping.
> > > >
> > > Ah right, will add. If I add the cdev ->lock here, will there be a
> > > AB-BA lock with thermal_zone_unbind_cooling_device?
> >
> > You're right, it could lead to a deadlock. The locks can't be swapped because
> > that won't work in step_wise.
> >
> > The best way that I can think of accessing thermal_instances atomically is by
> > making it RCU protected instead of with mutexes.
> > What do you think?
> >
> RCU would need extra spinlocks to protect the list, and need to sync_rcu after we delete
> one instance from thermal_instance list, I think it is too complicated for me to rewrite: (
> How about using thermal_list_lock instead of cdev ->lock?
> This guy should be big enough to protect the device.thermal_instance list.
thermal_list_lock protects thermal_tz_list and thermal_cdev_list, but
it doesn't protect the thermal_instances list. For example,
thermal_zone_bind_cooling_device() adds a cooling device to the
cdev->thermal_instances list without taking thermal_tz_list.
To sum up, you have to protect accessing the cdev->thermal_instances
list but with the current locking scheme, you would create an AB-BA
deadlock. As I see it you would have to change the locking scheme to
either RCU or add a new mutex that protects the
cdev->thermal_instances and tz->thermal_instances lists and change all
accesses to them to make sure they comply with the new locking scheme.
Is there a better way of solving this? Cheers,
Javi
--
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