Re: [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq: governor: Create separate sysfs-ops

Viresh Kumar
2016-02-03T06:33:47Z

On 02-02-16, 17:01, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On 02/02/16 17:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:

> > > This patch cleans things up a lot, that's good.
> > >
> > > One thing I'm still concerned about, though: don't we need some locking
> > > in place for some of the store operations on governors attributes? Are
> > > store_{ignore_nice_load, sampling_down_fact, etc} safe without locking?
> >
> > That would require some investigation I suppose.

Yeah, that protection is required. Sorry about that.

> > > It seems that we can call them from different cpus concurrently.
> >
> > Yes, we can.
> >
> > One quick-and-dirty way of dealing with that might be to introduce a
> > "sysfs lock" into struct dbs_data and hold that around the invocation
> > of gattr->store() in the sysfs_ops's ->store callback.

s/dirty/sane ? :)

> Can't we actually try to use the policy->rwsem (or one of the core
> locks) + wait_for_completion approach as we do in cpufreq core?

policy->rwsem will defeat the purpose of this change as it will
reintroduce the ABBA issue.

--
viresh