Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1664532

Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] PM / Domains: Add lockdep asserts for domains list mutex

From Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] PM / Domains: Add lockdep asserts for domains list mutex
Date 2017-06-13 09:20 +0200
Message-ID <tROhj-4Yo-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <tRzih-3K9-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tRzii-3K9-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tRD2x-6gP-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 09:09:59PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 12 June 2017 at 17:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > Add lockdep checks for holding mutex protecting the list of domains.
> > This might expose misuse even though only file-scope functions use it
> > for now.
> 
> I think it seems a bit silly to use these lockdep checks as these
> functions are as you state above, static functions. Moreover there are
> called from a quite limited amount of places.
> 
> Do you really think this add some value?

In ideal world, these would not need lockdeps because we do not make
mistakes. I agree, that mostly the exposed functions to other kernel
modules should be protected, as lockdep annotation is a more advanced
way of documenting the need of locking.

Does it mean that file-scope functions should not be annotated? Even in
such case function can be misused as the code is getting more and more
complicated.

What is best example, one of these calls (pm_genpd_present()) was
already used in wrong way, without locking when iterating over the list.
Having lockdep would point this early.

Best regards,
Krzysztof


> 
> Kind regards
> Uffe
> 
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/base/power/domain.c | 6 ++++++
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > index 983f086ab235..9d3d3c2a5979 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> > @@ -726,6 +726,8 @@ static bool pm_genpd_present(const struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> >  {
> >         const struct generic_pm_domain *gpd;
> >
> > +       lockdep_assert_held(&gpd_list_lock);
> > +
> >         if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(genpd))
> >                 return false;
> >
> > @@ -1321,6 +1323,8 @@ static int genpd_add_subdomain(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd,
> >         struct gpd_link *link, *itr;
> >         int ret = 0;
> >
> > +       lockdep_assert_held(&gpd_list_lock);
> > +
> >         if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(genpd) || IS_ERR_OR_NULL(subdomain)
> >             || genpd == subdomain)
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> > @@ -1528,6 +1532,8 @@ static int genpd_remove(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> >  {
> >         struct gpd_link *l, *link;
> >
> > +       lockdep_assert_held(&gpd_list_lock);
> > +
> >         if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(genpd))
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> >
> > --
> > 2.9.3
> >

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH v2 3/8] PM / Domains: Add lockdep asserts for domains list mutex Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> - 2017-06-12 17:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] PM / Domains: Add lockdep asserts for domains list mutex Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> - 2017-06-12 21:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] PM / Domains: Add lockdep asserts for domains  list mutex Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> - 2017-06-13 09:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] PM / Domains: Add lockdep asserts for domains list mutex Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> - 2017-06-13 10:40 +0200

csiph-web