[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gJ3oZtH2Qf=p4iLZhg+5T1Frvk57p0e9GMz7rON2sO6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:30:04 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: governor: Fix race in dbs_update_util_handler()
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 22-02-16, 13:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:23 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>> > On 21-02-16, 03:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
[cut]
>> > I think we should be doing this here:
>> >
>> > delta_ns = time - ACCESS_ONCE(policy_dbs->last_sample_time);
>> > if ((s64)delta_ns < policy_dbs->sample_delay_ns) {
>> > atomic_set(&policy_dbs->work_count, 0);
>> > return;
>> > }
>> >
>> > There is no point running the routine again, we already have ->work_count
>> > incremented for us, lets do the check right now.
>>
>> No, we need to check work_in_progress too.
>
> Then maybe move first half of this routine into a separate function
> and call it from the beginning and here ?
That won't help. The time value is still going to be stale.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists