On 29/11/2018 10:58, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 29/11/18 10:18, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 29/11/2018 08:04, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>>> With or without this patch, it is the case:
>>>>
>>>> task1 task2
>>>> | |
>>>> read("/sys/.../cpu1/cpu_capacity) |
>>>> | write("/sys/.../cpu1/cpu_capacity")
>>>> read("/sys/.../cpu2/cpu_capacity) |
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no guarantee userspace can have a consistent view of the
>>>> capacity. As soon as it reads a capacity, it can be changed in its back.
>>>
>>> True, but w/o the mutex task1 could read different cpu_capacity values
>>> for a cluster (it actually can also with current implementation, we
>>> should grab the mutex in the read path as well if we want to avoid
>>> this).
>>
>> Even if the mutex is on the read path, the userspace can see different
>> capacities because it will read the cpu_capacity per cpu directory.
>>
>> The mutex will be take when reading cpu0/cpu_capacity, not for
>> cpu[0-9]/cpu_capacity. Between two reads, a write can happen because the
>> lock is released in between.
>>
>> Do you agree with the patch ? Or do you want me to drop it ?
>
> I don't actually have cases at hand that are showing regression with it,
> I was just trying to understand if we might potentially hit problems in
> the future. So, I'm not against this patch. :-)
not-not-acked-by ? :)
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
