Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933127AbbGHMbG (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:31:06 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:32262 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933047AbbGHMbB (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:31:01 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,431,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="760556038" Message-ID: <559D176C.5000205@intel.com> Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 20:28:28 +0800 From: Pan Xinhui User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dmitry Torokhov CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, "mnipxh@163.com" , "yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] acpi-cpufreq: replace per_cpu with driver_data of policy References: <559BC96E.8020804@intel.com> <20150707171126.GB12491@dtor-ws> In-Reply-To: <20150707171126.GB12491@dtor-ws> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2350 Lines: 73 hi, Dmitry thanks for your reply On 2015年07月08日 01:11, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Hi Pan, > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:43:26PM +0800, Pan Xinhui wrote: >> @@ -364,19 +363,24 @@ static u32 get_cur_val(const struct cpumask *mask) >> >> static unsigned int get_cur_freq_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu) >> { >> - struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data = per_cpu(acfreq_data, cpu); >> + struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data; >> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy; >> unsigned int freq; >> unsigned int cached_freq; >> >> pr_debug("get_cur_freq_on_cpu (%d)\n", cpu); >> >> - if (unlikely(data == NULL || >> - data->acpi_data == NULL || data->freq_table == NULL)) { >> + policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); >> + if (unlikely(!policy)) >> + return 0; >> + >> + data = policy->driver_data; >> + cpufreq_cpu_put(policy); > > If we put policy here can we guarantee that memory pointed to by data > stays valid? Shoudln't we issue cpufreq_cpu_put(policy) after we done > assessing the pointer? > *driver_data* is used internal by acpi-cpufreq driver. So probably issuing cpufreq_cpu_put(policy) after we get *driver_data* is OKay. The worry you have is about the race. we set *driver_data* to NULL then free it in ->exit callback while ->get callback is using it. CPU A CPU B ->get ->exit data = policy->driver_data; if (!data ....) policy->driver_data = NULL; kfree(data); access data .... yes, it might happen in real world. As Viresh says, it is more like to be a core level work. But this race exists in current codes, too. Maybe down_write policy->rwsem can avoid this race(need double check). thanks for pointing out it. :) thanks xinhui >> + if (unlikely(!data || !data->acpi_data || !data->freq_table)) >> return 0; >> - } >> >> cached_freq = data->freq_table[data->acpi_data->state].frequency; >> - freq = extract_freq(get_cur_val(cpumask_of(cpu)), data); >> + freq = extract_freq(get_cur_val(cpumask_of(cpu), data), data); >> if (freq != cached_freq) { >> /* >> * The dreaded BIOS frequency change behind our back. > > Thanks. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/