Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] PM / Runtime: introduce pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio()

[Alan Stern]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Ming Lei wrote:

> +void pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio(struct device *dev, bool enable)
> +{
> +	dev->power.memalloc_noio_resume = enable;
> +
> +	if (!dev->parent)
> +		return;
> +
> +	if (enable) {
> +		pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio(dev->parent, 1);
> +	} else {
> +		/* only clear the flag for one device if all
> +		 * children of the device don't set the flag.
> +		 */
> +		if (device_for_each_child(dev->parent, NULL,
> +					  dev_memalloc_noio))
> +			return;
> +
> +		pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio(dev->parent, 0);
> +	}
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio);

Tail recursion should be implemented as a loop, not as an explicit
recursion.  That is, the function should be:

void pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio(struct device *dev, bool enable)
{
	do {
		dev->power.memalloc_noio_resume = enable;

		if (!enable) {
			/*
			 * Don't clear the parent's flag if any of the
			 * parent's children have their flag set.
			 */
			if (device_for_each_child(dev->parent, NULL,
					  dev_memalloc_noio))
				return;
		}
		dev = dev->parent;
	} while (dev);
}

except that you need to add locking, for two reasons:

	There's a race.  What happens if another child sets the flag
	between the time device_for_each_child() runs and the next loop
	iteration?

	Even without a race, access to bitfields is not SMP-safe 
	without locking.

Alan Stern

--
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/