From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753486Ab2HAGAe (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:00:34 -0400
Received: from e28smtp02.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.2]:57420 "EHLO
	e28smtp02.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752930Ab2HAGAd (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 1 Aug 2012 02:00:33 -0400
Message-ID: <5018C5D6.4000304@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:29:50 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
CC: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuidle: coupled: fix sleeping while atomic in cpu notifier
References: <1343251216-24106-1-git-send-email-ccross@android.com> <5017FD3E.7090003@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <CAMbhsRT_h=dTfUVRmMUj5Bz7ZqcJ7UA2svwNP9CNa9=f=cL4+Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMbhsRT_h=dTfUVRmMUj5Bz7ZqcJ7UA2svwNP9CNa9=f=cL4+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
x-cbid: 12080105-5816-0000-0000-000003CFBBEC
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 07/31/2012 11:57 PM, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> On 07/26/2012 02:50 AM, Colin Cross wrote:
>>> The cpu hotplug notifier gets called in both atomic and non-atomic
>>> contexts, it is not always safe to lock a mutex.  Filter out all events
>>> except the six necessary ones, which are all sleepable, before taking
>>> the mutex.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/cpuidle/coupled.c |   12 ++++++++++++
>>>  1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/coupled.c b/drivers/cpuidle/coupled.c
>>> index 2c9bf26..c24dda0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/coupled.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/coupled.c
>>> @@ -678,6 +678,18 @@ static int cpuidle_coupled_cpu_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
>>>       int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
>>>       struct cpuidle_device *dev;
>>>
>>> +     switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) {
>>> +     case CPU_UP_PREPARE:
>>> +     case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
>>> +     case CPU_ONLINE:
>>> +     case CPU_DEAD:
>>> +     case CPU_UP_CANCELED:
>>> +     case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
>>> +             break;
>>> +     default:
>>> +             return NOTIFY_OK;
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>
>> Instead, wouldn't it be better to have case statements for the
>> 2 cases that imply atomic context and return immediately?
>>
>> Something like:
>>         switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) {
>>         case CPU_STARTING:
>>         case CPU_DYING:
>>                 return NOTIFY_OK;
>>         }
> 
> No, because then it would need updating whenever a new notification
> event was added.
> 

Hmm.. Fair enough.

Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat