linux-pm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/19] cpufreq: assert policy->rwsem is held in __cpufreq_governor
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 12:24:05 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56AFBEE5.70501@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0gzKkoKsbv_KG0qL-7=j4a3DU-nOTCG71fZcoumQ0UZUw@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/01/2016 02:22 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On 30-01-16, 12:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 29, 2016 04:33:39 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>>> AFAIR, the ABBA issue was between the sysfs lock and the policy lock.
>>
>> Yeah, to be precise here it is:
>>
>> CPU0 (sysfs read)               CPU1 (exit governor)
>>
>> sysfs-read                      set_policy()-> lock policy->rwsem
>> sysfs-active lock               Remove sysfs files
>> lock policy->rwsem              sysfs-active lock
>> Actual read
>>
>>>> The fix for that issue should not be dropping the lock around
>>>> POLICY_EXIT.
>>>
>>> Right.  Dropping the lock is a mistake (which I overlooked, sadly).
>>
>> I joined the party at around time of 3.10, and we had this problem and
>> hacky solution then as well. We tried to get rid of it multiple times,
>> but sadly failed.
>
> I kind of like your idea of accessing governor attributes without
> holding the policy rwsem.

I'm not sure whose idea you are referring to. Viresh's (I don't think I 
saw his proposal) or mine.

> I looked at that code and it seems doable to me.  The problem to solve
> there would be to ensure that the dbs_data pointer is valid when
> show/store runs for those attributes.
>
> The fact that we make the distinction between global and policy
> governors in there doesn't really help, but it looks like getting rid
> of that bit wouldn't be too much effort.  Let me take a deeper look at
> that.
>

Anyway, to explain my suggestion better, I'm proposing to make it so 
that we don't have a need for the AB BA locking. The only reason the 
governor needs to even grab the sysfs lock is to add/remove the sysfs 
attribute files.

That can be easily achieved if the policy struct has some "gov_attrs" 
field(s) that each governor populates. Then the framework just has to 
create them after POLICY_INIT is processed by the governor and remove 
them before POILICY_EXIT is sent to the governor.

That way, we also avoid having to worry about the gov attributes 
accessed by the show/store disappearing while the files are being 
accessed. Since we remove those files before we even ask the gov to 
clean up, that situation can never happen.

The current problem is that there is no good place for the governor to 
populate this "gov_attrs" field(s). Maybe the governor register might be 
one place for it to provide the data to the framework and the framework 
can later fill it up itself when switching governors.

Thanks,
Saravana

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

  reply	other threads:[~2016-02-01 20:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 110+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-01-11 17:35 [RFC PATCH 00/19] cpufreq locking cleanups and documentation Juri Lelli
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 01/19] cpufreq: do not expose cpufreq_governor_lock Juri Lelli
2016-01-12  8:56   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 02/19] cpufreq: merge governor lock and mutex Juri Lelli
2016-01-12  9:00   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 03/19] cpufreq: kill for_each_policy Juri Lelli
2016-01-12  9:01   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 04/19] cpufreq: bring data structures close to their locks Juri Lelli
2016-01-11 22:05   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-11 23:03     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-12  8:27       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-12 10:43         ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 16:47         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-11 22:07   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-12  9:27     ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-12 11:21       ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 11:58         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-12 12:36           ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 15:26             ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 15:58               ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-12  9:10   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 05/19] cpufreq: assert locking when accessing cpufreq_policy_list Juri Lelli
2016-01-12  9:34   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-12 11:44     ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-13  5:59       ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 06/19] cpufreq: always access cpufreq_policy_list while holding cpufreq_driver_lock Juri Lelli
2016-01-12  9:57   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-12 12:08     ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-13  6:01       ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 07/19] cpufreq: assert locking when accessing cpufreq_governor_list Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 10:01   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-12 15:33     ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 08/19] cpufreq: fix warning for cpufreq_init_policy unlocked access to cpufreq_governor_list Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 10:09   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-12 15:52     ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-13  6:07       ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-14 16:35         ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18  5:23           ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-18 15:19             ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 09/19] cpufreq: fix warning for show_scaling_available_governors " Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 10:13   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-13 10:25     ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-13 10:32       ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 10/19] cpufreq: assert policy->rwsem is held in cpufreq_set_policy Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 10:15   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 11/19] cpufreq: assert policy->rwsem is held in __cpufreq_governor Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 10:20   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-30  0:33     ` Saravana Kannan
2016-01-30 11:49       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-01  6:09         ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-01 10:22           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-01 20:24             ` Saravana Kannan [this message]
2016-02-01 21:00               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-02  6:36                 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-02 21:38                   ` Saravana Kannan
2016-02-02  6:34               ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-02 21:37                 ` Saravana Kannan
2016-02-03  2:13                   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-03  4:04                     ` Saravana Kannan
2016-02-03  5:02                       ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-03  5:06                         ` Saravana Kannan
2016-02-03  6:59                           ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 12/19] cpufreq: fix locking of policy->rwsem in cpufreq_init_policy Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 10:39   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-14 17:58     ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 13/19] cpufreq: fix locking of policy->rwsem in cpufreq_offline_prepare Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 10:54   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-15 12:37     ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 14/19] cpufreq: fix locking of policy->rwsem in cpufreq_offline_finish Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 11:02   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 15/19] cpufreq: remove useless usage of cpufreq_governor_mutex in __cpufreq_governor Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 11:06   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-15 16:30     ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18  5:50       ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-19 16:49         ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-20  7:29           ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-20 10:17             ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-20 10:18               ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-20 10:27                 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-20 10:30                   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 16/19] cpufreq: hold policy->rwsem across CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 11:09   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 17/19] cpufreq: stop checking for cpufreq_driver being present in cpufreq_cpu_get Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 11:17   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-11 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 18/19] cpufreq: remove transition_lock Juri Lelli
2016-01-12 11:24   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-13  0:54     ` Michael Turquette
2016-01-13  6:31       ` Viresh Kumar
     [not found]         ` <20160113182131.1168.45753@quark.deferred.io>
2016-01-14  9:44           ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-14 10:32           ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-14 13:52             ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-18  5:09               ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-19 14:00           ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-19 14:42             ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-19 15:30               ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-19 16:01                 ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-19 19:17                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-19 19:21                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-19 21:52                       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-20 17:04                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-20 22:12                           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-20 22:38                             ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-01-20 23:33                               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-20 12:59                       ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-11 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH 19/19] cpufreq: documentation: document locking scheme Juri Lelli
2016-01-11 22:45 ` [RFC PATCH 00/19] cpufreq locking cleanups and documentation Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-12 10:46   ` Juri Lelli
2016-01-30  0:57 ` Saravana Kannan
2016-02-01  6:02   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-01 12:06   ` Juri Lelli

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=56AFBEE5.70501@codeaurora.org \
    --to=skannan@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
    --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=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --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).