From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@sgi.com>
Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to use the rcu
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:20:26 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKohponMWRPspZF=tPN6MXoxkcjw7CK_sLnSdsKe+EDoiADvGA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1361404583-5557-3-git-send-email-nzimmer@sgi.com>
On 21 February 2013 05:26, Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@sgi.com> wrote:
> In general rwlocks are discourged so we are moving it to use the rcu instead.
> This does require a bit of care since the cpufreq_driver_lock protects both
> the cpufreq_driver and the cpufreq_cpu_data array.
> Also since many of the function pointers on cpufreq_driver may sleep when
> called we have to grab them under the rcu_read_lock but call them after
> rcu_read_unlock();
Even i have started reading rcu documentation now :)
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@sgi.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 312 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 224 insertions(+), 88 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -255,20 +258,21 @@ static inline void adjust_jiffies(unsigned long val, struct cpufreq_freqs *ci)
> void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs, unsigned int state)
> {
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> - unsigned long flags;
> + u8 flags;
I think you can get rid of flags.
> BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
>
> if (cpufreq_disabled())
> return;
>
> - freqs->flags = cpufreq_driver->flags;
> pr_debug("notification %u of frequency transition to %u kHz\n",
> state, freqs->new);
>
> - read_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + flags = rcu_dereference(cpufreq_driver)->flags;
use freq->flags here ...
> policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, freqs->cpu);
> - read_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + freqs->flags = flags;
>
> switch (state) {
>
> @@ -277,7 +281,7 @@ void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs, unsigned int state)
> * which is not equal to what the cpufreq core thinks is
> * "old frequency".
> */
> - if (!(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)) {
> + if (!(flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)) {
and here.
> if ((policy) && (policy->cpu == freqs->cpu) &&
> (policy->cur) && (policy->cur != freqs->old)) {
> pr_debug("Warning: CPU frequency is"
> @@ -742,35 +773,39 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev_interface(unsigned int cpu,
> - write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus) {
> per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = policy;
> per_cpu(cpufreq_policy_cpu, j) = policy->cpu;
> }
> - write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> + synchronize_rcu();
I don't think (but i can be wrong too :) ), that we need a synchronize_rcu()
here. We need it only at places where we have updated the cpufreq_driver
pointer.
As we aren't doing any rcu specific read/update for cpufreq_cpu_data.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-21 5:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-04 22:45 [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-04 22:45 ` [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to a rwlock Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-05 8:11 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-02-04 22:45 ` [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to use the rcu Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-05 1:07 ` [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-02-05 8:28 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-02-05 10:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-02-05 9:58 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-02-05 10:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-02-05 14:58 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-05 22:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-02-06 2:04 ` [PATCH v2 linux-next " Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-06 2:04 ` [PATCH v2 linux-next 1/2] cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to a rwlock Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-06 2:47 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-02-06 2:04 ` [PATCH v2 linux-next 2/2] cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to use the rcu Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-06 2:52 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-02-06 8:51 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-02-06 13:00 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-02-07 23:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-02-11 17:13 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-11 19:36 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-02-12 4:03 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-12 15:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-02-13 13:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-02-20 23:56 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-20 23:56 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to a rwlock Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-20 23:56 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to use the rcu Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-21 5:50 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2013-02-21 17:49 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-22 16:24 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-22 16:24 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to a rwlock Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-23 3:57 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-02-22 16:24 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to use the rcu Nathan Zimmer
2013-02-23 3:39 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-02-25 20:07 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-03-11 23:23 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-03-13 20:50 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-01 15:33 ` [PATCH v5] cpufreq: split the cpufreq_driver_lock and use the rcu (was cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems) Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-01 16:28 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-04-01 17:17 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-01 20:11 ` [PATCH v6 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-01 20:11 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] cpufreq: split the cpufreq_driver_lock and use the rcu Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-02 5:05 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-04-02 14:55 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-02 14:59 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-04-02 15:40 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-02 15:52 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-04-02 22:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-04-03 5:25 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-04-01 20:11 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] cpufreq: covert the cpufreq_data_lock to a spinlock Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-01 20:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-04-02 0:56 ` Nathan Zimmer
2013-04-02 5:04 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-04-02 12:48 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-04-02 14:58 ` Nathan Zimmer
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='CAKohponMWRPspZF=tPN6MXoxkcjw7CK_sLnSdsKe+EDoiADvGA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=cpufreq@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nzimmer@sgi.com \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).