From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756616Ab3D1WOX (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:14:23 -0400 Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:48299 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753774Ab3D1WOV (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:14:21 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Viresh Kumar , Nathan Zimmer Cc: cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next v8] cpufreq: convert the cpufreq_driver to use the rcu Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:22:32 +0200 Message-ID: <3218775.0Qs2EbHdzR@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.9.0-rc8+; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <515C5AB6.5090109@sgi.com> <1365087205-8708-1-git-send-email-nzimmer@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, April 04, 2013 09:57:19 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 4 April 2013 20:23, Nathan Zimmer wrote: > > We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or convert > > it back to a spinlock and protect the read sections with RCU. The first step in > > that is moving the cpufreq_driver to use the rcu. > > I don't see an easy wasy to protect the cpufreq_cpu_data structure with the > > RCU, so I am leaving it with the rwlock for now since under certain configs > > __cpufreq_cpu_get is hot spot with 256+ cores. > > > > v5: Go a different way and split up the lock and use the rcu > > v6: use bools instead of checking function pointers > > covert the cpufreq_data_lock to a rwlock > > v7: Rebase to use the already accepted half > > v8: Correct have_governor_per_policy > > Reviewed location of rcu_read_(un)lock in several spots > > Sorry for long delay or too many versions of this patch :) > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar Unfortunately, I had to revert this one, because it is obviously buggy. Why? Because it adds rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() around sysfs_create_file() which may sleep due to a GFP_KERNEL memory allocation. Sorry for failing to notice that earlier. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.