public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org,
	patches@linaro.org,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
	David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] clk: allow reentrant calls into the clk framework
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:24:12 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1303271209490.22263@ionos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1364368183-24420-1-git-send-email-mturquette@linaro.org>

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Mike Turquette wrote:
> +/***  locking & reentrancy ***/
> +
> +static void clk_fwk_lock(void)

This function name sucks as much as the whole implementation does.

> +{
> +	/* hold the framework-wide lock, context == NULL */
> +	mutex_lock(&prepare_lock);
> +
> +	/* set context for any reentrant calls */
> +	atomic_set(&prepare_context, (int) get_current());

And what's the point of the atomic here? There is no need for an
atomic if you hold the lock. Neither here nor on the reader side.

Aside of that, the cast to (int) and the one below to (void *) are
blantantly wrong on 64 bit.

> +}
> +
> +static void clk_fwk_unlock(void)
> +{
> +	/* clear the context */
> +	atomic_set(&prepare_context, 0);
> +
> +	/* release the framework-wide lock, context == NULL */
> +	mutex_unlock(&prepare_lock);
> +}
> +
> +static bool clk_is_reentrant(void)
> +{
> +	if (mutex_is_locked(&prepare_lock))
> +		if ((void *) atomic_read(&prepare_context) == get_current())

Mooo.

> +			return true;
> +
> +	return false;
> +}

Why the heck do you need this function?

Just to sprinkle all these ugly constructs into the code:

> -	mutex_lock(&prepare_lock);
> +	/* re-enter if call is from the same context */
> +	if (clk_is_reentrant()) {
> +		__clk_unprepare(clk);
> +		return;
> +	}

Sigh. Why not doing the obvious?

Step 1/2: Wrap locking in helper functions

+static void clk_prepare_lock(void)
+{
+	mutex_lock(&prepare_lock);
+}
+
+static void clk_prepare_unlock(void)
+{
+	mutex_unlock(&prepare_lock);
+}

That way the whole change in the existing code boils down to:

-	mutex_lock(&prepare_lock);
+	clk_prepare_lock();
...
-	mutex_unlock(&prepare_lock);
+	clk_prepare_unlock();

Ditto for the spinlock.

And there is no pointless reshuffling of functions required.


Step 2/2: Implement reentrancy

+static struct task_struct *prepare_owner;
+static int prepare_refcnt;

static void clk_prepare_lock()
{
-	mutex_lock(&prepare_lock);
+	if (!mutex_trylock(&prepare_lock)) {
+		if (prepare_owner == current) {
+		   	prepare_refcnt++;
+			return;
+		}
+		mutex_lock(&prepare_lock);
+	}
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(prepare_owner != NULL);
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(prepare_refcnt != 0);
+	prepare_owner = current;
+	prepare_refcnt = 1;
}

static void clk_prepare_unlock(void)
{
-	mutex_unlock(&prepare_lock);
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(prepare_owner != current);
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(prepare_refcnt == 0);
+
+	if (--prepare_refcnt)
+		return;
+	prepare_owner = NULL;
+	mutex_unlock(&prepare_lock);
}

Ditto for the spinlock.

That step requires ZERO change to the functions. They simply work and
you don't need all this ugly reentrancy hackery.

Thanks,

	tglx

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-03-27 11:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-03-27  7:09 [PATCH v4] clk: allow reentrant calls into the clk framework Mike Turquette
2013-03-27  9:08 ` Laurent Pinchart
     [not found]   ` <20130327150634.4014.64797@quantum>
2013-03-27 17:12     ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-03-27  9:40 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-03-27  9:55   ` Viresh Kumar
2013-03-27 10:03     ` Ulf Hansson
2013-03-27 11:09       ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-03-27 14:25         ` Mike Turquette
2013-03-27  9:59   ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-03-27 11:24 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
     [not found]   ` <20130327164716.4014.97638@quantum>
2013-03-27 17:09     ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-03-27 22:56 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-03-28  4:45 ` [PATCH v5 0/2] reentrancy in the common " Mike Turquette
2013-03-28  4:45   ` [PATCH 1/2] clk: abstract locking out into helper functions Mike Turquette
2013-03-28  9:31     ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-03-28  4:45   ` [PATCH 2/2] clk: allow reentrant calls into the clk framework Mike Turquette
2013-03-28  9:33     ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-03-28 15:23       ` Mike Turquette
2013-03-28 10:44   ` [PATCH v5 0/2] reentrancy in the common " Laurent Pinchart
2013-03-28 20:59   ` [PATCH v6 " Mike Turquette
2013-03-28 20:59     ` [PATCH 1/2] clk: abstract locking out into helper functions Mike Turquette
2013-04-02  9:23       ` Ulf Hansson
2013-03-28 20:59     ` [PATCH 2/2] clk: allow reentrant calls into the clk framework Mike Turquette
2013-04-02  9:35       ` Ulf Hansson

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=alpine.LFD.2.02.1303271209490.22263@ionos \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=davidb@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com \
    --cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mturquette@linaro.org \
    --cc=patches@linaro.org \
    /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