Re: [PATCH 12/12] cpufreq: governor: Narrow down the dbs_data_mutex coverage

[Viresh Kumar]

On 18-02-16, 02:38, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Since cpufreq_governor_dbs() is now always called with policy->rwsem
> held, it cannot be executed twice in parallel for the same policy.
> Thus it is not necessary to hold dbs_data_mutex around the invocations
> of cpufreq_governor_start/stop/limits() from it as those functions
> never modify any data that can be shared between different policies.
> 
> However, cpufreq_governor_dbs() may be executed twice in parallal
> for different policies using the same gov->gdbs_data object and
> dbs_data_mutex is still necessary to protect that object against
> concurrent updates.
> 
> For this reason, narrow down the dbs_data_mutex locking to
> cpufreq_governor_init/exit() where it is needed and rename the
> mutex to gov_dbs_data_mutex to reflect its purpose.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c |   53 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
>  
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpu_dbs_info, cpu_dbs);
>  
> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(dbs_data_mutex);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(gov_dbs_data_mutex);
>  
>  /* Common sysfs tunables */
>  /**
> @@ -422,10 +422,10 @@ static void free_policy_dbs_info(struct
>  static int cpufreq_governor_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  {
>  	struct dbs_governor *gov = dbs_governor_of(policy);
> -	struct dbs_data *dbs_data = gov->gdbs_data;
> +	struct dbs_data *dbs_data;
>  	struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs;
>  	unsigned int latency;
> -	int ret;
> +	int ret = 0;
>  
>  	/* State should be equivalent to EXIT */
>  	if (policy->governor_data)
> @@ -435,6 +435,10 @@ static int cpufreq_governor_init(struct
>  	if (!policy_dbs)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> +	/* Protect gov->gdbs_data against concurrent updates. */
> +	mutex_lock(&gov_dbs_data_mutex);
> +
> +	dbs_data = gov->gdbs_data;
>  	if (dbs_data) {
>  		if (WARN_ON(have_governor_per_policy())) {
>  			ret = -EINVAL;
> @@ -447,8 +451,7 @@ static int cpufreq_governor_init(struct
>  		dbs_data->usage_count++;
>  		list_add(&policy_dbs->list, &dbs_data->policy_dbs_list);
>  		mutex_unlock(&dbs_data->mutex);
> -
> -		return 0;
> +		goto out;
>  	}
>  
>  	dbs_data = kzalloc(sizeof(*dbs_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -488,10 +491,14 @@ static int cpufreq_governor_init(struct
>  	ret = kobject_init_and_add(&dbs_data->kobj, &gov->kobj_type,
>  				   get_governor_parent_kobj(policy),
>  				   "%s", gov->gov.name);
> -	if (!ret)
> -		return 0;
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto err;
>  
> -	/* Failure, so roll back. */
> +out:
> +	mutex_unlock(&gov_dbs_data_mutex);
> +	return ret;
> +
> +err:

This has turned into an ugly maze, really. I think it would be much
better if we sacrifice a bit on consistency in the code, and move the
locks in cpufreq_governor_dbs() around invocations to
cpufreq_governor_init(). Or maybe create a
__cpufreq_governor_init(), or whatever.

That routine is hardly readably anymore.

-- 
viresh