From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] PM / Domains: Add lockdep asserts for domains list mutex
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:12:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170613071218.bbml7vsfcdgpirlp@kozik-lap> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFr=-Ty9ZQ276nmkAPnJjwc3PmuKSdJrOqeEYcxbgfypYA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 09:09:59PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 12 June 2017 at 17:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > Add lockdep checks for holding mutex protecting the list of domains.
> > This might expose misuse even though only file-scope functions use it
> > for now.
>
> I think it seems a bit silly to use these lockdep checks as these
> functions are as you state above, static functions. Moreover there are
> called from a quite limited amount of places.
>
> Do you really think this add some value?
In ideal world, these would not need lockdeps because we do not make
mistakes. I agree, that mostly the exposed functions to other kernel
modules should be protected, as lockdep annotation is a more advanced
way of documenting the need of locking.
Does it mean that file-scope functions should not be annotated? Even in
such case function can be misused as the code is getting more and more
complicated.
What is best example, one of these calls (pm_genpd_present()) was
already used in wrong way, without locking when iterating over the list.
Having lockdep would point this early.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/base/power/domain.c | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > index 983f086ab235..9d3d3c2a5979 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > @@ -726,6 +726,8 @@ static bool pm_genpd_present(const struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> > {
> > const struct generic_pm_domain *gpd;
> >
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&gpd_list_lock);
> > +
> > if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(genpd))
> > return false;
> >
> > @@ -1321,6 +1323,8 @@ static int genpd_add_subdomain(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd,
> > struct gpd_link *link, *itr;
> > int ret = 0;
> >
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&gpd_list_lock);
> > +
> > if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(genpd) || IS_ERR_OR_NULL(subdomain)
> > || genpd == subdomain)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > @@ -1528,6 +1532,8 @@ static int genpd_remove(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> > {
> > struct gpd_link *l, *link;
> >
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&gpd_list_lock);
> > +
> > if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(genpd))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > --
> > 2.9.3
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-13 7:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-12 15:17 [PATCH v2 0/8] PM / Domains: Bunch of small improvements and fixes Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-06-12 15:17 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] PM / Domains: Constify genpd pointer Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-06-13 10:36 ` Ulf Hansson
2017-06-12 15:17 ` [RFT v2 2/8] PM / Domains: Handle safely genpd_syscore_switch() call on non-genpd device Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-06-13 10:38 ` Ulf Hansson
2017-06-12 15:17 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] PM / Domains: Add lockdep asserts for domains list mutex Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-06-12 19:09 ` Ulf Hansson
2017-06-13 7:12 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski [this message]
2017-06-13 8:34 ` Ulf Hansson
2017-06-12 15:17 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] PM / Domains: Fix unsafe iteration over modified list of device links Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-06-13 10:38 ` Ulf Hansson
2017-06-12 15:17 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] PM / Domains: Fix unsafe iteration over modified list of domain providers Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-06-13 10:38 ` Ulf Hansson
2017-06-12 15:17 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] PM / Domains: Fix unsafe iteration over modified list of domains Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-06-13 10:39 ` Ulf Hansson
2017-06-12 15:17 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] PM / Domains: Fix missing default_power_down_ok comment Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-06-13 10:39 ` Ulf Hansson
2017-06-12 15:17 ` [RFC v2 8/8] PM / Domains: Add asserts for PM domain locks Krzysztof Kozlowski
2017-06-27 22:51 ` [PATCH v2 0/8] PM / Domains: Bunch of small improvements and fixes Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-06-28 14:48 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
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=20170613071218.bbml7vsfcdgpirlp@kozik-lap \
--to=krzk@kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=khilman@kernel.org \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
/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
Powered by JetHome