From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
skannan@codeaurora.org, peterz@infradead.org,
mturquette@baylibre.com, steve.muckle@linaro.org,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq: Get rid of ->governor_enabled and its lock
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 11:05:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160203110512.GR3947@e106622-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160203060554.GS31828@vireshk>
On 03/02/16 11:35, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 02-02-16, 16:49, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > There are still paths where we call __cpufreq_governor() without holding
> > policy->rwsem, but those should be fixed with my cleanups (that I intend
> > to refresh and post soon). So, I'm not sure we can safely remove this
> > yet.
>
> No, we can't.. Though I haven't seen any races from happening even
> after removing it, but it doesn't mean we can't.
>
> The deal is that, the entire sequence of events needs to be guaranteed
> to happen in a particular order without any other code performing
> similar operations concurrently.
>
> And so we need to preserve the other sites with proper rwsem locking
> first.
>
Right. I guess it is what I was trying to do with my cleanups, adding
assertions and fixing paths that didn't verify those.
It should be easy to rebase that set (or a part of it) on top of your
and/or Rafael changes. I realize that there are multiple sets of changes
under discussion; so, please tell me how do you, and Rafael, want to
proceed about this.
> > So, __cpufreq_governor() becomes effectively a wrapper around
> > ->governor() calls and governors are left responsible for implementing
> > the state machine with appropriate checks.
>
> Not really. The core can now guarantee that the entire sequence
> happens atomically. For example, on governor switch, we need to
> guarantee that STOP/EXIT happen without any intervention for the old
> governor. Or, INIT/START/LIMITS happen without any intervention for
> the new governor, etc..
>
OK, checking for invalid state transitions (for ondemand and
conservative) is still in done cpufreq_governor.c.
> > Maybe we add a comment somewhere stating exactly how things are meant to
> > work?
But, I guess any other governor that will bypass cpufreq_governor.c, it
will also have to implement such checks. I was just proposing to state
this somewhere, so that we don't forget.
Best,
- Juri
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-03 11:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-02 10:57 [PATCH 0/5] cpufreq: governors: Solve the ABBA lockups Viresh Kumar
2016-02-02 10:57 ` [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: governor: Kill declare_show_sampling_rate_min() Viresh Kumar
2016-02-02 20:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-03 2:29 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-02 10:57 ` [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq: governor: Create separate sysfs-ops Viresh Kumar
2016-02-02 15:47 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-02 16:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-02 17:01 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-02 19:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-02 22:21 ` Saravana Kannan
2016-02-02 23:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-03 1:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-03 1:32 ` Saravana Kannan
2016-02-03 1:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-03 4:03 ` Saravana Kannan
2016-02-03 6:57 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-03 20:07 ` Saravana Kannan
2016-02-03 6:54 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-03 10:51 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-03 10:55 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-03 20:14 ` Saravana Kannan
2016-02-03 6:51 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-03 6:33 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-02 21:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-03 6:58 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-03 12:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-03 13:21 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-03 13:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-02 10:57 ` [PATCH 3/5] cpufreq: governor: Remove unused sysfs attribute macros Viresh Kumar
2016-02-02 21:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-02 10:57 ` [PATCH 4/5] cpufreq: Don't drop rwsem before calling CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT Viresh Kumar
2016-02-02 21:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-03 5:51 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-03 12:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-03 13:09 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-02 10:57 ` [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq: Get rid of ->governor_enabled and its lock Viresh Kumar
2016-02-02 16:49 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-03 6:05 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-03 11:05 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2016-02-03 11:08 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-02 21:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-02 11:25 ` [PATCH 0/5] cpufreq: governors: Solve the ABBA lockups Juri Lelli
2016-02-02 20:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-03 2:22 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-03 11:37 ` Viresh Kumar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160203110512.GR3947@e106622-lin \
--to=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=skannan@codeaurora.org \
--cc=steve.muckle@linaro.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).