* [PATCH, RFC] uio BKL removal
@ 2008-08-26 23:15 Jonathan Corbet
2008-08-27 0:06 ` Greg KH
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2008-08-26 23:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML; +Cc: Greg KH, hjk
I had a moment to dedicate to the BKL removal cause, so I went for the
UIO driver, which seemed simple. The main thing I found was that there
was locking around some idr accesses, but not all, so I filled that
in. With that in place, removing the BKL from uio_open() seems safe,
especially since none of the in-tree UIO drivers have open() or
release() methods.
(Incidentally, I don't see how uio_pdrv.c could ever work - who initializes
uioinfo?)
If there's no complaints, I'll feed this into linux-next via the
bkl-removal tree.
Thanks,
jon
---
UIO: BKL removal
Remove the BKL from the UIO driver, and add complete locking where needed
to serialize idr accesses.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
diff --git a/drivers/uio/uio.c b/drivers/uio/uio.c
index 3a6934b..4f28f4b 100644
--- a/drivers/uio/uio.c
+++ b/drivers/uio/uio.c
@@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ static struct uio_class {
struct class *class;
} *uio_class;
+/* Protect idr accesses */
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(minor_lock);
+
/*
* attributes
*/
@@ -231,7 +234,6 @@ static void uio_dev_del_attributes(struct uio_device *idev)
static int uio_get_minor(struct uio_device *idev)
{
- static DEFINE_MUTEX(minor_lock);
int retval = -ENOMEM;
int id;
@@ -253,7 +255,9 @@ exit:
static void uio_free_minor(struct uio_device *idev)
{
+ mutex_lock(&minor_lock);
idr_remove(&uio_idr, idev->minor);
+ mutex_unlock(&minor_lock);
}
/**
@@ -297,8 +301,9 @@ static int uio_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
struct uio_listener *listener;
int ret = 0;
- lock_kernel();
+ mutex_lock(&minor_lock);
idev = idr_find(&uio_idr, iminor(inode));
+ mutex_unlock(&minor_lock);
if (!idev) {
ret = -ENODEV;
goto out;
@@ -324,18 +329,15 @@ static int uio_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
if (ret)
goto err_infoopen;
}
- unlock_kernel();
return 0;
err_infoopen:
-
kfree(listener);
-err_alloc_listener:
+err_alloc_listener:
module_put(idev->owner);
out:
- unlock_kernel();
return ret;
}
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH, RFC] uio BKL removal
2008-08-26 23:15 [PATCH, RFC] uio BKL removal Jonathan Corbet
@ 2008-08-27 0:06 ` Greg KH
2008-08-27 8:08 ` Hans J. Koch
2008-08-27 20:45 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2008-08-27 0:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Corbet; +Cc: LKML, hjk
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 05:15:32PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> I had a moment to dedicate to the BKL removal cause, so I went for the
> UIO driver, which seemed simple. The main thing I found was that there
> was locking around some idr accesses, but not all, so I filled that
> in. With that in place, removing the BKL from uio_open() seems safe,
> especially since none of the in-tree UIO drivers have open() or
> release() methods.
>
> (Incidentally, I don't see how uio_pdrv.c could ever work - who initializes
> uioinfo?)
>
> If there's no complaints, I'll feed this into linux-next via the
> bkl-removal tree.
Looks good to me, feel free to add an:
Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
to it.
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH, RFC] uio BKL removal
2008-08-26 23:15 [PATCH, RFC] uio BKL removal Jonathan Corbet
2008-08-27 0:06 ` Greg KH
@ 2008-08-27 8:08 ` Hans J. Koch
2008-08-27 20:45 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Hans J. Koch @ 2008-08-27 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Corbet; +Cc: LKML, Greg KH, hjk
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 05:15:32PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> I had a moment to dedicate to the BKL removal cause, so I went for the
> UIO driver, which seemed simple. The main thing I found was that there
> was locking around some idr accesses, but not all, so I filled that
> in. With that in place, removing the BKL from uio_open() seems safe,
> especially since none of the in-tree UIO drivers have open() or
> release() methods.
>
> (Incidentally, I don't see how uio_pdrv.c could ever work - who initializes
> uioinfo?)
That has to be done somewhere in your board specific file, e.g. for ARM
boards in arch/arm/mach-xxx/board-something.c - the same place where you
setup your struct platform_device.
>
> If there's no complaints, I'll feed this into linux-next via the
> bkl-removal tree.
Seems right.
Acked-by: Hans J. Koch <hjk@linutronix.de>
>
> Thanks,
>
> jon
>
> ---
> UIO: BKL removal
>
> Remove the BKL from the UIO driver, and add complete locking where needed
> to serialize idr accesses.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/uio/uio.c b/drivers/uio/uio.c
> index 3a6934b..4f28f4b 100644
> --- a/drivers/uio/uio.c
> +++ b/drivers/uio/uio.c
> @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ static struct uio_class {
> struct class *class;
> } *uio_class;
>
> +/* Protect idr accesses */
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(minor_lock);
> +
> /*
> * attributes
> */
> @@ -231,7 +234,6 @@ static void uio_dev_del_attributes(struct uio_device *idev)
>
> static int uio_get_minor(struct uio_device *idev)
> {
> - static DEFINE_MUTEX(minor_lock);
> int retval = -ENOMEM;
> int id;
>
> @@ -253,7 +255,9 @@ exit:
>
> static void uio_free_minor(struct uio_device *idev)
> {
> + mutex_lock(&minor_lock);
> idr_remove(&uio_idr, idev->minor);
> + mutex_unlock(&minor_lock);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -297,8 +301,9 @@ static int uio_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
> struct uio_listener *listener;
> int ret = 0;
>
> - lock_kernel();
> + mutex_lock(&minor_lock);
> idev = idr_find(&uio_idr, iminor(inode));
> + mutex_unlock(&minor_lock);
> if (!idev) {
> ret = -ENODEV;
> goto out;
> @@ -324,18 +329,15 @@ static int uio_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
> if (ret)
> goto err_infoopen;
> }
> - unlock_kernel();
> return 0;
>
> err_infoopen:
> -
> kfree(listener);
> -err_alloc_listener:
>
> +err_alloc_listener:
> module_put(idev->owner);
>
> out:
> - unlock_kernel();
> return ret;
> }
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH, RFC] uio BKL removal
2008-08-26 23:15 [PATCH, RFC] uio BKL removal Jonathan Corbet
2008-08-27 0:06 ` Greg KH
2008-08-27 8:08 ` Hans J. Koch
@ 2008-08-27 20:45 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alexey Dobriyan @ 2008-08-27 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Corbet; +Cc: LKML, Greg KH, hjk
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 05:15:32PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> UIO: BKL removal
>
> Remove the BKL from the UIO driver, and add complete locking where needed
> to serialize idr accesses.
> --- a/drivers/uio/uio.c
> +++ b/drivers/uio/uio.c
> @@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ static struct uio_class {
> struct class *class;
> } *uio_class;
>
> +/* Protect idr accesses */
You can rename it to uio_idr_mutex (it's mutex, dammit!) and put next to
uio_idr and avoid comment ;-) Or if locking around _pre_get() isn't
necessary you can actually make it spinlock ;-) Anyway, put it close.
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(minor_lock);
Indeed, BKL protects nothing because of GFP_KERNEL allocation.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-08-27 20:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-08-26 23:15 [PATCH, RFC] uio BKL removal Jonathan Corbet
2008-08-27 0:06 ` Greg KH
2008-08-27 8:08 ` Hans J. Koch
2008-08-27 20:45 ` Alexey Dobriyan
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox