Re: CPUFREQ-CPUHOTPLUG: Possible circular locking dependency

From: Gautham R Shenoy
Date: Thu Nov 30 2006 - 07:31:59 EST

On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 12:53:27PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Gautham R Shenoy <ego@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This is what is currently being done by cpufreq:
> ok!
> > a) get_some_cpu_hotplug_protection() [use either some global mechanism
> > or a persubsystem mutex]
> this bit is wrong i think. Any reason why it's not a per-CPU (but
> otherwise global) array of mutexes that controls CPU hotplug - as per my
> previous mail?
> that would flatten the whole locking. Only one kind of lock taken,
> recursive and scalable.

I had posted one such recursive scalable version which can be found here

I remember cc'ing you.

Yeah, it looks complicated and big, but then I did not want to add
another field to the task struct as one such attempt had already been
frowned upon ( I think long back Ashok posted it)

So I ended up writing the whole read/write lock/unlock code myself.

It's a RCU based lock, extremely light on the read side, but costly for the
writers since it does a synchronize_sched.

And yeah, it's partial towards the readers but with an additional field
in the task struct we can have a fair implementation.

Besides, an unfair cpu_hotplug_lock won't work since a process doing a
sched_getaffinity in a forever_while loop can prevent any hotplug from

> Then the mechanism that changes CPU frequency should take all these
> hotplug locks on all (online) CPUs, and then first stop all processing
> on all CPUs, and then do the frequency change, atomically. This is with
> interrupts disabled everywhere /first/, and /without any additional
> locking/. That would prevent any sort of interaction from other CPUs -
> they'd all be sitting still with interrupts disabled.


> Ingo

Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at