On 08/02/2013 12:51 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 02, 2013 12:31:23 AM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 08/02/2013 12:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:36:49 PM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>> Its the cpufreq_cpu_get() hidden away in cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(). With
>>>> that taken care of, everything should be OK. Then we can change the
>>>> synchronization part to avoid using refcounts.
>>>
>>> So I actually don't see why cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() needs to call
>>> cpufreq_cpu_get() at all, since the policy refcount is already 1 at the
>>> point it is called and the bumping up of the driver module refcount is
>>> pointless.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, yes, it seems so.
>>
>>> However, if I change that I also need to change the piece of code that
>>> calls the complementary cpufreq_cpu_put() and I kind of cannot find it.
>>>
>>
>> ... I guess that's because you are looking at the code with your patch
>> applied (and your patch removed that _put()) ;-)
>
> No, it's not that one. That one was complementary to the cpufreq_cpu_get()
> done by cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() before my patch. Since my patch changes
> cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() to call cpufreq_cpu_put() before returning and
> bump up the policy refcount with kobject_get(), the one in
> __cpufreq_remove_dev() is changed into kobject_put() (correctly, IMO).
>
> What gives?
>
Actually, it _is_ the one I pointed above. This thing is tricky, here's why:
cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() is called only if:
a. The CPU being onlined has per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu) == NULL
and
b. Its is present in some CPU's related_cpus mask.
If condition (a) doesn't hold good, you get out right in the beginning of
__cpufreq_add_dev().
So, cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() is called very rarely because, inside
__cpufreq_add_dev we do:
1093 write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
1094 for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus) {
1095 per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = policy;
1096 per_cpu(cpufreq_policy_cpu, j) = policy->cpu;
1097 }
1098 write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
So for all the CPUs in the above policy->cpus mask, we simply return
without further ado when they are onlined. In particular, we *dont* call
cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() for any of them.
And their refcounts are incremented by the cpufreq_add_dev_interface()->
cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() function.
So, ultimately, we increment the refcount for a given non-policy-owner CPU
only once. *Either* in cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() *or* in cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(),
but never both.
So, in the teardown path, __cpufreq_remove_dev() needs only one place to
decrement it as shown below:
1303 } else {
1304
1305 if (!frozen) {
1306 pr_debug("%s: removing link, cpu: %d\n", __func__, cpu);
1307 cpufreq_cpu_put(data);
1308 }
Pretty good maze, right? ;-(
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
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
