On Tuesday, December 08, 2015 12:29:05 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 08-12-15, 01:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > @@ -269,9 +259,6 @@ static void dbs_timer_handler(unsigned l
> > {
> > struct cpu_dbs_info *cdbs = (struct cpu_dbs_info *)data;
> > struct cpu_common_dbs_info *shared = cdbs->shared;
> > - unsigned long flags;
> > -
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&shared->timer_lock, flags);
> >
> > /*
> > * Timer handler isn't allowed to queue work at the moment, because:
> > @@ -279,12 +266,10 @@ static void dbs_timer_handler(unsigned l
> > * - We are stopping the governor
> > * - Or we are updating the sampling rate of ondemand governor
> > */
> > - if (!shared->skip_work) {
> > - shared->skip_work++;
> > + if (atomic_inc_return(&shared->skip_work) > 1)
> > + atomic_dec(&shared->skip_work);
> > + else
> > queue_work(system_wq, &shared->work);
> > - }
>
> As explained in the other email, this is wrong..
OK, but instead of relying on the spinlock to wait for the already running
dbs_timer_handler() in gov_cancel_work() (which is really easy to overlook
and should at least be mentioned in a comment) we can wait for it explicitly.
That is, if the relevant code in gov_cancel_work() is like this:
atomic_inc(&shared->skip_work);
gov_cancel_timers(shared->policy);
cancel_work_sync(&shared->work);
gov_cancel_timers(shared->policy);
atomic_set(&shared->skip_work, 0);
then the work item should not be leaked behind the cancel_work_sync() any more
AFAICS.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
