On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:39:13AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 8 February 2013 04:37, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > BTW, there still are locking problems in linux-next. Why do we need
> > to take cpufreq_driver_lock() around driver->init() in cpufreq_add_dev(),
> > in particular?
> I thought a bit more and realized there is no such limitation on
> cpufreq_driver->ops about calling routines which can sleep. And thus
> we shoudln't
> have locks around any of these. I have got a patch for it, that i
> would fold-back into
> the original patch that introduced locking fixes (attached too for testing):
Tested this patch on top of linux-pm.git/bleeding-edge
Now everything seems to be alright.
> From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:35:31 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Remove unnecessary locking
>
> I have placed some locks intentionally around calls to driver->ops (init/exit),
> which look to be wrong as these calls can call routines that potentially sleep.
>
> Lets remove these locks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 -------
> 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 5d8a422..04aab05 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -795,10 +795,8 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev_interface(unsigned int cpu,
>
> if (ret) {
> pr_debug("setting policy failed\n");
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> if (driver->exit)
> driver->exit(policy);
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> }
> return ret;
>
> @@ -920,17 +918,14 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev,
> struct subsys_interface *sif)
> init_completion(&policy->kobj_unregister);
> INIT_WORK(&policy->update, handle_update);
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> /* call driver. From then on the cpufreq must be able
> * to accept all calls to ->verify and ->setpolicy for this CPU
> */
> ret = driver->init(policy);
> if (ret) {
> pr_debug("initialization failed\n");
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> goto err_set_policy_cpu;
> }
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>
> /* related cpus should atleast have policy->cpus */
> cpumask_or(policy->related_cpus, policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
> @@ -1100,10 +1095,8 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device
> *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif
> wait_for_completion(cmp);
> pr_debug("wait complete\n");
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> if (driver->exit)
> driver->exit(data);
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>
> free_cpumask_var(data->related_cpus);
> free_cpumask_var(data->cpus);
Tested-by: Artem Savkov <artem.savkov@xxxxxxxxx>
--
Kind regards,
Artem
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
