On Monday, April 29, 2013 02:37:28 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:Agreed, I think that would be cleanest. I probably won't have time to get to it this week though.On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:22:32AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:Agreed, but at this point of the cycle I'd just preferred to do the revert andOn Thursday, April 04, 2013 09:57:19 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:One workaround might be to use SRCU, which allows sleeping in itsOn 4 April 2013 20:23, Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@xxxxxxx> wrote:Unfortunately, I had to revert this one, because it is obviously buggy. Why?We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or convertSorry for long delay or too many versions of this patch :)
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
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
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.
critical sections.
start over.
Thanks,
Rafael