Hi,Javi > -----Original Message----- > From: Javi Merino [mailto:javi.merino@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 1:08 AM > To: Chen, Yu C > Cc: linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; edubezval@xxxxxxxxx; Zhang, Rui; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Pandruvada, Srinivas > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Thermal: do thermal zone update after a cooling > device registered > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 09:23:28AM +0000, Chen, Yu C wrote: > > Hi, Javi > > Sorry for my late response, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Javi Merino [mailto:javi.merino@xxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 12:02 AM > > > To: Chen, Yu C > > > Cc: linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; edubezval@xxxxxxxxx; Zhang, Rui; > > > linux- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Thermal: do thermal zone update after a > > > cooling device registered > > > > > > Hi Yu, > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 06:52:00PM +0100, Chen, Yu C wrote: > > > > Hi, Javi, > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Javi Merino [mailto:javi.merino@xxxxxxx] > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 10:29 PM > > > > > To: Chen, Yu C > > > > > Cc: linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; edubezval@xxxxxxxxx; Zhang, Rui; > > > > > linux- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Thermal: do thermal zone update after a > > > > > cooling device registered > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 06:48:44AM +0100, Chen Yu wrote: > > > > > > From: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you need to hold cdev->lock here, to make sure that no > > > > > thermal zone is added or removed from cdev->thermal_instances > > > > > while > > > you are looping. > > > > > > > > > Ah right, will add. If I add the cdev ->lock here, will there be a > > > > AB-BA lock with thermal_zone_unbind_cooling_device? > > > > > > You're right, it could lead to a deadlock. The locks can't be > > > swapped because that won't work in step_wise. > > > > > > The best way that I can think of accessing thermal_instances > > > atomically is by making it RCU protected instead of with mutexes. > > > What do you think? > > > > > RCU would need extra spinlocks to protect the list, and need to > > sync_rcu after we delete one instance from thermal_instance list, I > > think it is too complicated for me to rewrite: ( How about using > thermal_list_lock instead of cdev ->lock? > > This guy should be big enough to protect the device.thermal_instance list. > > thermal_list_lock protects thermal_tz_list and thermal_cdev_list, but it > doesn't protect the thermal_instances list. For example, > thermal_zone_bind_cooling_device() adds a cooling device to the > cdev->thermal_instances list without taking thermal_tz_list. > Before thermal_zone_bind_cooling_device is invoked, the thermal_list_lock will be firstly gripped: static void bind_cdev(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev) { mutex_lock(&thermal_list_lock); either tz->ops->bind : thermal_zone_bind_cooling_device or __bind() : thermal_zone_bind_cooling_device mutex_unlock(&thermal_list_lock); } And it is the same as in passive_store. So when code is trying to add/delete thermal_instance of cdev, he has already hold thermal_list_lock IMO. Or do I miss anything? Best Regards, Yu ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����������ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f