Re: [PATCH V3 11/13] cpufreq: governor: Keep list of policy_dbs within dbs_data

[Viresh Kumar]

On 08-02-16, 14:21, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > An instance of 'struct dbs_data' can support multiple 'struct
> > policy_dbs_info' instances. To traverse all policy_dbs supported by a
> > dbs_data, create a list of policy_dbs within dbs_data.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Good idea overall, I like this.

Thanks.

> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h |  7 ++++++-
> >  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> > index ee3c2d92da53..e267acc67067 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> > @@ -489,6 +489,11 @@ static int cpufreq_governor_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >                 dbs_data->usage_count++;
> >                 policy_dbs->dbs_data = dbs_data;
> >                 policy->governor_data = policy_dbs;
> > +
> > +               mutex_lock(&dbs_data->mutex);
> > +               list_add(&policy_dbs->list, &dbs_data->policy_dbs_list);
> > +               mutex_unlock(&dbs_data->mutex);
> 
> The previous statements should be under the mutex too IMO, at least
> the usage count incrementation in case two instances of this happen at
> the same time.
> 
> That can't happen now, but if we want to get rid of dbs_data_mutex
> going forward, having it under the mutex will be actually useful.

I think we should keep it precise for now. Right now, we are only
concerned about the list modification, so just lock around that.

Once we are going to remove dbs_data_mutex, then we can cover more
things under it.

Is there anything that is broken right now ?

> > +
> >                 return 0;
> >         }
> >
> > @@ -500,8 +505,11 @@ static int cpufreq_governor_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >
> >         dbs_data->usage_count = 1;
> >         dbs_data->gov = gov;
> > +       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dbs_data->policy_dbs_list);
> >         mutex_init(&dbs_data->mutex);
> >
> > +       list_add(&policy_dbs->list, &dbs_data->policy_dbs_list);
> 
> That line should go to where policy_dbs->dbs_data is set so it is
> clear that they go together.

Okay.

> And I'd set the usage count to 1 in
> there too for consistency.

I am not sure about including any updates within the lock, which don't
need protection in current state of code.

-- 
viresh