All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
To: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 2/3] kernel/time/clockevents: make setting of ->mult and ->mult_mono atomic
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:16:10 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLWQuHdm8XpkhOSFeGOkjh23yudUVuoAMgFOUs9xZUU6Xw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160713130017.8202-3-nicstange@gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com> wrote:
> In order to avoid races between setting a struct clock_event_device's
> ->mult_mono in clockevents_update_freq() and yet to be implemented updates
> triggered from the timekeeping core, the setting of ->mult and ->mult_mono
> should be made atomic.
>
> Protect the update in clockevents_update_freq() by locking the
> clockevents_lock spinlock. Frequency updates are expected to be done
> seldomly and thus, taking this subsystem lock should not have any impact
> on performance.
>
> Use a raw_spin_lock_irq_save()/raw_spin_unlock_irq_restore() pair for
> locking/unlocking the clockevents_lock spinlock.
> Purge the now redundant local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore() pair from
> clockevents_update_freq(). Since the call to tick_broadcast_update_freq()
> isn't done with interrupts disabled anymore,  its
> raw_spin_lock()/raw_spin_unlock() pair must be converted to
> raw_spin_lock_irq_save()/raw_spin_unlock_irq_restore().
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
> ---
>  kernel/time/clockevents.c    | 7 ++++---
>  kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c | 5 +++--
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/clockevents.c b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> index ba7fea4..ec01375 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/clockevents.c
> @@ -589,11 +589,12 @@ int clockevents_update_freq(struct clock_event_device *dev, u32 freq)
>         unsigned long flags;
>         int ret;
>
> -       local_irq_save(flags);
>         ret = tick_broadcast_update_freq(dev, freq);
> -       if (ret == -ENODEV)
> +       if (ret == -ENODEV) {
> +               raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&clockevents_lock, flags);
>                 ret = __clockevents_update_freq(dev, freq);
> -       local_irq_restore(flags);
> +               raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&clockevents_lock, flags);
> +       }
>         return ret;
>  }
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> index f6aae79..9c94c41 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> @@ -125,11 +125,12 @@ int tick_is_broadcast_device(struct clock_event_device *dev)
>  int tick_broadcast_update_freq(struct clock_event_device *dev, u32 freq)
>  {
>         int ret = -ENODEV;
> +       unsigned long flags;
>
>         if (tick_is_broadcast_device(dev)) {
> -               raw_spin_lock(&tick_broadcast_lock);
> +               raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&tick_broadcast_lock, flags);
>                 ret = __clockevents_update_freq(dev, freq);
> -               raw_spin_unlock(&tick_broadcast_lock);
> +               raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tick_broadcast_lock, flags);
>         }


So not necessarily part of your change, but this makes using
tick_broadcast_update_freq() seem strange.

We call it and if dev is a broadcast_device we call
__clockevents_update_freq(), and if not, it fails and we then just
call __clockevents_update_freq() again?

Why bother calling tick_broadcast_update_freq here, and instead just
call __clockevents_update_freq() directly the first time?

thanks
-john

  reply	other threads:[~2016-07-21 18:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-07-13 13:00 [RFC v3 0/3] adapt clockevents frequencies to mono clock Nicolai Stange
2016-07-13 13:00 ` [RFC v3 1/3] kernel/time/clockevents: initial support for mono to raw time conversion Nicolai Stange
2016-07-21 18:08   ` John Stultz
2016-07-21 19:11     ` Nicolai Stange
2016-07-13 13:00 ` [RFC v3 2/3] kernel/time/clockevents: make setting of ->mult and ->mult_mono atomic Nicolai Stange
2016-07-21 18:16   ` John Stultz [this message]
2016-07-21 19:24     ` Nicolai Stange
2016-07-21 19:31       ` John Stultz
2016-07-13 13:00 ` [RFC v3 3/3] kernel/time/timekeeping: inform clockevents about freq adjustments Nicolai Stange

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=CALAqxLWQuHdm8XpkhOSFeGOkjh23yudUVuoAMgFOUs9xZUU6Xw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=john.stultz@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nicstange@gmail.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.