On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:22:32AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, April 04, 2013 09:57:19 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 4 April 2013 20:23, Nathan Zimmer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or
> > > convert
> > > 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
> >
> > Sorry for long delay or too many versions of this patch :)
> >
> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
>
> Unfortunately, I had to revert this one, because it is obviously buggy. Why?
> 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.
One workaround might be to use SRCU, which allows sleeping in its
critical sections.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
