Re: [patch 2/3] cpufreq: Define dbs_mutex purpose and cleanup its usage

Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2009-06-25T20:56:36Z

On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 12:46 -0700, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com (venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com) wrote:
> > Commit b14893a62c73af0eca414cfed505b8c09efc613c although it was very
> > much needed to cleanup ondemand timer cleanly, openup a can of worms
> > related to locking dependencies in cpufreq.
> >
> > Patch here defines the need for dbs_mutex and cleans up its usage in
> > ondemand governor. This also resolves the lockdep warnings reported here
> >
> > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.1/01925.html
> >

> > @@ -598,14 +593,16 @@ static int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > max(min_sampling_rate,
> > latency * LATENCY_MULTIPLIER);
> > }
> > + mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> > +
> > dbs_timer_init(this_dbs_info);
> >
> > - mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> > break;
> >
> > case CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP:
> > - mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
> > dbs_timer_exit(this_dbs_info);
>
> Hrm, so.. how do we protect against concurrent :
>
> CPUFREQ_GOV_START/CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP now ?

concurrent _START _STOP across CPUs does not matter for timer_init and
timer_exit. On same CPU, there cannot be two concurrent _START as upper
level cpufreq will have policy_rwsem in write mode. I cannot think of a
flow where _START and _STOP on same CPU is possible.

However two concurrent _STOP for same CPU is still possible, as we are
releasing the rwsem lock before STOP callback. "Back to drawing board"
time to figure this all out..

Thanks,
Venki