Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Javi Merino [mailto:javi.mer...@arm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 10:05 PM
> To: Chen, Yu C
> Cc: linux...@vger.kernel.org; edubez...@gmail.com; Zhang, Rui; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org; sta...@vger.kernel.org; Pandruvada, Srinivas
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Thermal: do thermal zone update after a cooling
> device registered
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 07:23:55PM +0000, Chen, Yu C wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Javi Merino [mailto:javi.mer...@arm.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 1:08 AM
> > > To: Chen, Yu C
> > > Cc: linux...@vger.kernel.org; edubez...@gmail.com; Zhang, Rui;
> > > linux- ker...@vger.kernel.org; sta...@vger.kernel.org; Pandruvada,
> > > Srinivas
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Thermal: do thermal zone update after a
> > > cooling device registered
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 09:23:28AM +0000, Chen, Yu C wrote:
> > > > Hi, Javi
> > > > Sorry for my late response,
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Javi Merino [mailto:javi.mer...@arm.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 12:02 AM
> > > > > To: Chen, Yu C
> > > > > Cc: linux...@vger.kernel.org; edubez...@gmail.com; Zhang, Rui;
> > > > > linux- ker...@vger.kernel.org; sta...@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Thermal: do thermal zone update after a
> > > > > cooling device registered
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Yu,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 06:52:00PM +0100, Chen, Yu C wrote:
> > > > > > Hi, Javi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Javi Merino [mailto:javi.mer...@arm.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 10:29 PM
> > > > > > > To: Chen, Yu C
> > > > > > > Cc: linux...@vger.kernel.org; edubez...@gmail.com; Zhang,
> > > > > > > Rui;
> > > > > > > linux- ker...@vger.kernel.org; sta...@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Thermal: do thermal zone update
> > > > > > > after a cooling device registered
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 06:48:44AM +0100, Chen Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: Zhang Rui <rui.zh...@intel.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think you need to hold cdev->lock here, to make sure that
> > > > > > > no thermal zone is added or removed from
> > > > > > > cdev->thermal_instances while
> > > > > you are looping.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah right, will add. If I add the cdev ->lock here, will there
> > > > > > be a AB-BA lock with thermal_zone_unbind_cooling_device?
> > > > >
> > > > > You're right, it could lead to a deadlock. The locks can't be
> > > > > swapped because that won't work in step_wise.
> > > > >
> > > > > The best way that I can think of accessing thermal_instances
> > > > > atomically is by making it RCU protected instead of with mutexes.
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > RCU would need extra spinlocks to protect the list, and need to
> > > > sync_rcu after we delete one instance from thermal_instance list,
> > > > I think it is too complicated for me to rewrite: ( How about using
> > > thermal_list_lock instead of cdev ->lock?
> > > > This guy should be big enough to protect the device.thermal_instance
> list.
> > >
> > > thermal_list_lock protects thermal_tz_list and thermal_cdev_list,
> > > but it doesn't protect the thermal_instances list. For example,
> > > thermal_zone_bind_cooling_device() adds a cooling device to the
> > > cdev->thermal_instances list without taking thermal_tz_list.
> > >
> > Before thermal_zone_bind_cooling_device is invoked, the
> > thermal_list_lock will be firstly gripped:
> >
> > static void bind_cdev(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev) {
> > mutex_lock(&thermal_list_lock);
> > either tz->ops->bind : thermal_zone_bind_cooling_device
> > or __bind() : thermal_zone_bind_cooling_device
> > mutex_unlock(&thermal_list_lock);
> > }
> >
> > And it is the same as in passive_store.
> > So when code is trying to add/delete thermal_instance of cdev, he has
> > already hold thermal_list_lock IMO. Or do I miss anything?
>
> thermal_zone_bind_cooling_device() is exported, so you can't really rely on
> the static thermal_list_lock being acquired in every single call.
>
> thermal_list_lock and protects the lists thermal_tz_list and
> thermal_cdev_list.
> Making it implicitly protect the cooling device's and thermal zone device's
> instances list because no sensible code would call
> thermal_zone_bind_cooling_device() outside of a bind function is just asking
> for trouble.
>
Yes, from this point of view,it is true.
> Locking is hard to understand and easy to get wrong so let's keep it simple.
>
How about the following 2 methods:
1. avoid accessing device's thermal_instance,but
access all thermal_zone_device directly, although there might be some
redundancy,
some thermal zones do not need to be updated, but we can avoid gripping
dev->lock:
mutex_lock(&thermal_list_lock);
list_for_each_entry(pos, &thermal_tz_list, node)
thermal_zone_device_update(tz);
mutex_unlock(&thermal_list_lock);
or,
2. Once we bind the new device with the thermal_zone_device, we can record that
thermal_zone_device, and update that thermal_zone_device alone.
BTW, since thermal_zone_device_update is not atomic, we might need another patch
to make it into atomic or something like that, but for now, I think these three
patches are
just for fixing the regressions.
Thanks
Best Regards,
Yu
N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{����zX����ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v�������zZ+��+zf���h���~����i���z� �w���?�����&�)ߢf��^jǫy�m��@A�a���
0��h���i
