Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 3/6] cpufreq: qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add dcvs interrupt
 support
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     agross@kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, rui.zhang@intel.com,
        daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        steev@kali.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210727152512.1098329-1-thara.gopinath@linaro.org>
 <20210727152512.1098329-4-thara.gopinath@linaro.org>
 <20210728035014.25mgvrpnraxfslq7@vireshk-i7>
From:   Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <9a257605-d282-cd06-cc44-5ad5a5f8484d@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 28 Jul 2021 18:19:05 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210728035014.25mgvrpnraxfslq7@vireshk-i7>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 7/27/21 11:50 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 27-07-21, 11:25, Thara Gopinath wrote:
>> +static void qcom_lmh_dcvs_notify(struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data)
>> +{
> 
>> +	/* In the unlikely case cpufreq is de-registered do not enable polling or h/w interrupt */
>> +
>> +	spin_lock(&data->throttle_lock);
>> +	if (data->cancel_throttle) {
>> +		spin_unlock(&data->throttle_lock);
>> +		return;
>> +	}
>> +	spin_unlock(&data->throttle_lock);
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * If h/w throttled frequency is higher than what cpufreq has requested for, stop
>> +	 * polling and switch back to interrupt mechanism
>> +	 */
>> +
>> +	if (throttled_freq >= qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(cpumask_first(policy->cpus)))
>> +		/* Clear the existing interrupts and enable it back */
>> +		enable_irq(data->throttle_irq);
>> +	else
>> +		mod_delayed_work(system_highpri_wq, &data->throttle_work,
>> +				 msecs_to_jiffies(10));
>> +}
> 
>> +static void qcom_cpufreq_hw_lmh_exit(struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data)
>> +{
>> +	if (data->throttle_irq <= 0)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	spin_lock(&data->throttle_lock);
>> +	data->cancel_throttle = true;
>> +	spin_unlock(&data->throttle_lock);
>> +	cancel_delayed_work_sync(&data->throttle_work);
>> +	free_irq(data->throttle_irq, data);
>> +}
> 
> Lets see if we can still make it break :)
> 
> CPU0                                            CPU1
> 
> qcom_lmh_dcvs_notify()                          qcom_cpufreq_hw_lmh_exit()
> 
> spin_unlock()
>                                                  spin_lock(),
>                                                  cancel_throttle = true
>                                                  spin_unlock()
> 
>                                                  cancel_delayed_work_sync()
> mod_delayed_work()
>                                                  free_irq()
>                                                  kfree(data)
> qcom_lmh_dcvs_poll()
> Uses data.
> 
> 
> Sorry, locking is fun :)

Ha! I was too lazy to write this down! So how about I make this a mutex 
and put mod_delayed_work() inside the lock. So it will be something like 
below

qcom_lmh_dcvs_notify()			qcom_cpufreq_hw_lmh_exit()

mutex_lock()				mutex_lock()
   if (data->cancel_throttle) {		cancel_throttle = true
	mutex_unlock()			mutex_unlock()
	return				cancel_delayed_work_sync()
   }					free_irq()
   enable_irq() / mod_delayed_work()
mutex_unlock()

I will let you break it!

> 

-- 
Warm Regards
Thara (She/Her/Hers)