From: mark gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>
To: John Kacur <jkacur@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, arjan <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:34:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080825163412.GA21910@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <520f0cf10808141551k283aecb8y647d0f5ae321b81f@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:51:11AM +0200, John Kacur wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 08:52 -0700, mark gross wrote:
> >
> >> Keeping a lock around the different "target_value"s may not be so
> >> important. Its just a 32bit scaler value, and perhaps we can make it an
> >> atomic type? That way we loose the raw_spinlock.
> >
> > My suggestion was to keep the locking for the write side - so as to
> > avoid stuff stomping on one another, but drop the read side as:
> >
> > spin_lock
> > foo = var;
> > spin_unlock
> > return foo;
> >
> > is kinda useless, it doesn't actually serialize against the usage of
> > foo, that is, once it gets used, var might already have acquired a new
> > value.
> >
> > The only thing it would protect is reading var, but since that is a
> > machine sized read, its atomic anyway (assuming its naturally aligned).
> >
> > So no need for atomic_t (its read-side is just a read too), just drop
> > the whole lock usage from pq_qos_requirement().
> >
>
> Thanks Peter.
>
> Mark, is the following patch ok with you? This should be applied to
> mainline, and then after that no special patches are necessary for
> real-time.
I've been thinking about this patch and I worry that the readability
from making the use of this lock asymmetric WRT reads and writes to the
storage address is bothersome.
I would rather make the variable an atomic. What do you think about
that?
--mgross
>
> Thanks
>
> John Kacur
> Subject: Remove unnecessary lock in pm_qos_requirement
>
> Signed-off-by: John Kacur <jkacur at gmail dot com>
>
> Index: linux-2.6/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> +++ linux-2.6/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> @@ -193,14 +193,7 @@ static int find_pm_qos_object_by_minor(i
> */
> int pm_qos_requirement(int pm_qos_class)
> {
> - int ret_val;
> - unsigned long flags;
> -
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&pm_qos_lock, flags);
> - ret_val = pm_qos_array[pm_qos_class]->target_value;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pm_qos_lock, flags);
> -
> - return ret_val;
> + return pm_qos_array[pm_qos_class]->target_value;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_qos_requirement);
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-25 16:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-04 20:52 [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep John Kacur
2008-08-05 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-05 20:49 ` mark gross
2008-08-05 21:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-05 22:18 ` John Kacur
2008-08-11 13:25 ` John Kacur
2008-08-12 22:49 ` mark gross
2008-08-13 8:24 ` John Kacur
2008-08-14 15:52 ` mark gross
2008-08-14 17:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-14 22:51 ` John Kacur
2008-08-20 19:14 ` mark gross
2008-08-25 16:34 ` mark gross [this message]
2008-08-25 16:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-26 8:48 ` John Kacur
2008-08-26 16:18 ` mark gross
2008-08-26 17:45 ` John Kacur
2008-08-28 19:38 ` mark gross
2008-08-28 19:44 ` mark gross
2008-08-29 0:32 ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-29 6:31 ` John Kacur
2008-08-29 14:29 ` Steven Rostedt
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=20080825163412.GA21910@linux.intel.com \
--to=mgross@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=jkacur@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).