From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store()
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:01:15 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160212063115.GE16949@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2946666.LCVBdOefy1@vostro.rjw.lan>
On 11-02-16, 02:25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> The show() and store() routines in the cpufreq core don't need to
> acquire all of the locks to check if the struct freq_attr they want
> to use really provides the callbacks they need as expected, so change
> them to avoid doing that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 27 +++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -862,13 +862,11 @@ static ssize_t show(struct kobject *kobj
> struct freq_attr *fattr = to_attr(attr);
> ssize_t ret;
>
> - down_read(&policy->rwsem);
> -
> - if (fattr->show)
> - ret = fattr->show(policy, buf);
> - else
> - ret = -EIO;
> + if (!fattr->show)
> + return -EIO;
>
> + down_read(&policy->rwsem);
> + ret = fattr->show(policy, buf);
> up_read(&policy->rwsem);
>
> return ret;
> @@ -881,20 +879,17 @@ static ssize_t store(struct kobject *kob
> struct freq_attr *fattr = to_attr(attr);
> ssize_t ret = -EINVAL;
>
> - get_online_cpus();
> -
> - if (!cpu_online(policy->cpu))
> - goto unlock;
> + if (!fattr->store)
> + return -EIO;
>
> - down_write(&policy->rwsem);
> + get_online_cpus();
>
> - if (fattr->store)
> + if (cpu_online(policy->cpu)) {
> + down_write(&policy->rwsem);
> ret = fattr->store(policy, buf, count);
> - else
> - ret = -EIO;
> + up_write(&policy->rwsem);
> + }
>
> - up_write(&policy->rwsem);
> -unlock:
I have no problems with the patch as is, but how are we going to benefit from it
?
'if (fattr->show/store)' is never ever going to fail, unless we have a bug here.
So, even we may want to add a WARN_ON() for that case instead.
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-12 6:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-11 1:25 [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary locking in show() and store() Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-12 6:31 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2016-02-12 13:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-12 15:58 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-12 16:10 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-12 16:20 ` 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=20160212063115.GE16949@vireshk-i7 \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
/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