Re: [PATCH v8 4/8] PM / EM: add support for other devices than CPUs in Energy Model

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 6/3/20 4:13 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:31 PM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Daniel,

On 6/1/20 10:44 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 27/05/2020 11:58, Lukasz Luba wrote:
Add support for other devices than CPUs. The registration function
does not require a valid cpumask pointer and is ready to handle new
devices. Some of the internal structures has been reorganized in order to
keep consistent view (like removing per_cpu pd pointers).

Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx>
---

[ ... ]

   }
   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(em_register_perf_domain);
+
+/**
+ * em_dev_unregister_perf_domain() - Unregister Energy Model (EM) for a device
+ * @dev             : Device for which the EM is registered
+ *
+ * Try to unregister the EM for the specified device (but not a CPU).
+ */
+void em_dev_unregister_perf_domain(struct device *dev)
+{
+    if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev) || !dev->em_pd)
+            return;
+
+    if (_is_cpu_device(dev))
+            return;
+
+    mutex_lock(&em_pd_mutex);

Is the mutex really needed?

I just wanted to align this unregister code with register. Since there
is debugfs dir lookup and the device's EM existence checks I thought it
wouldn't harm just to lock for a while and make sure the registration
path is not used. These two paths shouldn't affect each other, but with
modules loading/unloading I wanted to play safe.

I can change it maybe to just dmb() and the end of the function if it's
a big performance problem in this unloading path. What do you think?

I would rather leave the mutex locking as is.

However, the question to ask is what exactly may go wrong without that
locking in place?  Is there any specific race condition that you are
concerned about?


I tried to test this with module loading & unloading with panfrost
driver and CPU hotplug (which should bail out quickly) and was OK.
I don't see any particular race. I don't too much about the
debugfs code, though. That's why I tried to protect from some
scripts/services which try to re-load the driver.

Apart from that, maybe just this dev->em = NULL to be populated to all
CPUs, which mutex_unlock synchronizes for free here.

Regards,
Lukasz


_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel



[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux