Re: [patch] cpufreq: mark cpufreq_tsc() as core_initcall_sync

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 01:47:48PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 
> > Here is the i386/sparc fixup
> 
> Gag me with a volvo.

No can do -- my wife drives a Ford and my car is a bicycle.

> This is disgusting, but I would actually prefer the following version over 
> the patches I've seen, because
> 
>  - it doesn't end up having any architecture-specific parts
> 
>  - it doesn't use the new "xxx_sync()" thing that I'm not even sure we 
>    should be using.
> 
>  - it makes it clear that this should be fixed, preferably by just having 
>    some way to initialize SRCU structs staticalyl. If we get that, the fix 
>    is to just replace the horrible "initialize by hand" with a static 
>    initializer once and for all.
> 
> Hmm?
> 
> Totally untested, but it compiles and it _looks_ sane. The overhead of the 
> function call should be minimal, once things are initialized.
> 
> Paul, it would be _really_ nice to have some way to just initialize that 
> SRCU thing statically. This kind of crud is just crazy.

Static initialization is a bit of a tarpit for SRCU.  Before this week,
I would have protested bitterly over the overhead of a dynamic runtime
check, but Jens is running into another issue that looks to require a
bit more read-side overhead as well (synchronize_srcu() is too expensive
for his situation).  Now if I can get one of the local weak-memory model
torture-chamber boxes to deal with a recent kernel...

Hardware whines aside, shouldn't be too hard.  Will put something
together...

							Thanx, Paul

> Comments?
> 
> 		Linus
> 
> ----
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 86e69b7..02326b2 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -52,14 +52,39 @@ static void handle_update(void *data);
>   * The mutex locks both lists.
>   */
>  static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(cpufreq_policy_notifier_list);
> -static struct srcu_notifier_head cpufreq_transition_notifier_list;
> 
> -static int __init init_cpufreq_transition_notifier_list(void)
> +/*
> + * This is horribly horribly ugly.
> + *
> + * We really want to initialize the transition notifier list
> + * statically and just once, but there is no static way to
> + * initialize a srcu lock, so we instead make up all this nasty
> + * infrastructure to make sure it's initialized when we use it.
> + *
> + * Bleaargh.
> + */
> +static struct srcu_notifier_head *cpufreq_transition_notifier_list(void)
>  {
> -	srcu_init_notifier_head(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list);
> -	return 0;
> +	static struct srcu_notifier_head *initialized;
> +	struct srcu_notifier_head *ret;
> +
> +	ret = initialized;
> +	if (!ret) {
> +		static DEFINE_MUTEX(init_lock);
> +
> +		mutex_lock(&init_lock);
> +		ret = initialized;
> +		if (!ret) {
> +			static struct srcu_notifier_head list_head;
> +			ret = &list_head;
> +			srcu_init_notifier_head(ret);
> +			smp_wmb();
> +			initialized = ret;
> +		}
> +		mutex_unlock(&init_lock);
> +	}
> +	return ret;
>  }
> -core_initcall(init_cpufreq_transition_notifier_list);
> 
>  static LIST_HEAD(cpufreq_governor_list);
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX (cpufreq_governor_mutex);
> @@ -268,14 +293,14 @@ void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cp
>  				freqs->old = policy->cur;
>  			}
>  		}
> -		srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
> +		srcu_notifier_call_chain(cpufreq_transition_notifier_list(),
>  				CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE, freqs);
>  		adjust_jiffies(CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE, freqs);
>  		break;
> 
>  	case CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE:
>  		adjust_jiffies(CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE, freqs);
> -		srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
> +		srcu_notifier_call_chain(cpufreq_transition_notifier_list(),
>  				CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE, freqs);
>  		if (likely(policy) && likely(policy->cpu == freqs->cpu))
>  			policy->cur = freqs->new;
> @@ -1055,7 +1080,7 @@ static int cpufreq_suspend(struct sys_de
>  		freqs.old = cpu_policy->cur;
>  		freqs.new = cur_freq;
> 
> -		srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
> +		srcu_notifier_call_chain(cpufreq_transition_notifier_list(),
>  				    CPUFREQ_SUSPENDCHANGE, &freqs);
>  		adjust_jiffies(CPUFREQ_SUSPENDCHANGE, &freqs);
> 
> @@ -1137,7 +1162,7 @@ static int cpufreq_resume(struct sys_dev
>  			freqs.new = cur_freq;
> 
>  			srcu_notifier_call_chain(
> -					&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
> +					cpufreq_transition_notifier_list(),
>  					CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE, &freqs);
>  			adjust_jiffies(CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE, &freqs);
> 
> @@ -1183,7 +1208,7 @@ int cpufreq_register_notifier(struct not
>  	switch (list) {
>  	case CPUFREQ_TRANSITION_NOTIFIER:
>  		ret = srcu_notifier_chain_register(
> -				&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list, nb);
> +				cpufreq_transition_notifier_list(), nb);
>  		break;
>  	case CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER:
>  		ret = blocking_notifier_chain_register(
> @@ -1215,7 +1240,7 @@ int cpufreq_unregister_notifier(struct n
>  	switch (list) {
>  	case CPUFREQ_TRANSITION_NOTIFIER:
>  		ret = srcu_notifier_chain_unregister(
> -				&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list, nb);
> +				cpufreq_transition_notifier_list(), nb);
>  		break;
>  	case CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER:
>  		ret = blocking_notifier_chain_unregister(
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/