[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <37ea96a2-d4a1-7d4c-a68a-8dc82896e86c@lechnology.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 18:14:12 -0600
From: David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>
To: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: kernel@...gutronix.de, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
a.fatoum@...gutronix.de, kamel.bouhara@...tlin.com,
gwendal@...omium.org, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, syednwaris@...il.com,
patrick.havelange@...ensium.com, fabrice.gasnier@...com,
mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, alexandre.torgue@...com,
o.rempel@...gutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 20/22] counter: Implement events_queue_size sysfs
attribute
On 2/25/21 6:03 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 03:51:40PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 19:32:16 +0900
>> William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 06:11:46PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 21:13:44 +0900
>>>> William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The events_queue_size sysfs attribute provides a way for users to
>>>>> dynamically configure the Counter events queue size for the Counter
>>>>> character device interface. The size is in number of struct
>>>>> counter_event data structures. The number of elements will be rounded-up
>>>>> to a power of 2 due to a requirement of the kfifo_alloc function called
>>>>> during reallocation of the queue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-counter | 8 +++++++
>>>>> drivers/counter/counter-chrdev.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> drivers/counter/counter-chrdev.h | 2 ++
>>>>> drivers/counter/counter-sysfs.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-counter b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-counter
>>>>> index 847e96f19d19..f6cb2a8b08a7 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-counter
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-bus-counter
>>>>> @@ -212,6 +212,14 @@ Description:
>>>>> both edges:
>>>>> Any state transition.
>>>>>
>>>>> +What: /sys/bus/counter/devices/counterX/events_queue_size
>>>>> +KernelVersion: 5.13
>>>>> +Contact: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
>>>>> +Description:
>>>>> + Size of the Counter events queue in number of struct
>>>>> + counter_event data structures. The number of elements will be
>>>>> + rounded-up to a power of 2.
>>>>> +
>>>>> What: /sys/bus/counter/devices/counterX/name
>>>>> KernelVersion: 5.2
>>>>> Contact: linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/counter/counter-chrdev.c b/drivers/counter/counter-chrdev.c
>>>>> index 16f02df7f73d..53eea894e13f 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/counter/counter-chrdev.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/counter/counter-chrdev.c
>>>>> @@ -375,6 +375,29 @@ void counter_chrdev_remove(struct counter_device *const counter)
>>>>> cdev_del(&counter->chrdev);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +int counter_chrdev_realloc_queue(struct counter_device *const counter,
>>>>> + size_t queue_size)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + int err;
>>>>> + DECLARE_KFIFO_PTR(events, struct counter_event);
>>>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Allocate new events queue */
>>>>> + err = kfifo_alloc(&events, queue_size, GFP_ATOMIC);
>>>>
>>>> Is there any potential for losing events?
>>>
>>> We take the events_list_lock down below so we're safe against missing an
>>> event, but past events currently unread in the queue will be lost.
>>>
>>> Shortening the size of the queue is inherently a destructive process if
>>> we have more events in the current queue than can fit in the new queue.
>>> Because we a liable to lose some events in such a case, I think it's
>>> best to keep the behavior of this reallocation consistent and have it
>>> provide a fresh empty queue every time, as opposed to sometimes dropping
>>> events and sometimes not.
>>>
>>> I also suspect an actual user would be setting the size of their queue
>>> to the required amount before they begin watching events, rather than
>>> adjusting it sporadically during a live operation.
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely agree. As such I wonder if you are better off enforcing this
>> behaviour? If the cdev is open for reading, don't allow the fifo to be
>> resized.
>>
>> Jonathan
>
> I can't really think of a good reason not to, so let's enforce it: if
> the cdev is open, then we'll return an EINVAL if the user attempts to
> resize the queue.
>
> What is a good way to check for this condition? Should I just call
> kref_read() and see if it's greater than 1? For example, in
> counter_chrdev_realloc_queue():
>
> if (kref_read(&counter->dev.kobj.kref) > 1)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> William Breathitt Gray
>
Wouldn't EBUSY make more sense?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists