Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] regulator: simplify locking | From | Dmitry Osipenko <> | Date | Mon, 10 Aug 2020 03:21:47 +0300 |
| |
10.08.2020 01:30, Michał Mirosław пишет: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:40:04AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> 10.08.2020 00:16, Michał Mirosław пишет: >>> Simplify regulator locking by removing locking around locking. rdev->ref >>> is now accessed only when the lock is taken. The code still smells fishy, >>> but now its obvious why. >>> >>> Fixes: f8702f9e4aa7 ("regulator: core: Use ww_mutex for regulators locking") >>> Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@rere.qmqm.pl> >>> --- >>> drivers/regulator/core.c | 37 ++++++-------------------------- >>> include/linux/regulator/driver.h | 1 - >>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c >>> index 9e18997777d3..b0662927487c 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c >>> +++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c >>> @@ -45,7 +45,6 @@ >>> pr_debug("%s: " fmt, rdev_get_name(rdev), ##__VA_ARGS__) >>> >>> static DEFINE_WW_CLASS(regulator_ww_class); >>> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(regulator_nesting_mutex); >>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(regulator_list_mutex); >>> static LIST_HEAD(regulator_map_list); >>> static LIST_HEAD(regulator_ena_gpio_list); >>> @@ -150,32 +149,13 @@ static bool regulator_ops_is_valid(struct regulator_dev *rdev, int ops) >>> static inline int regulator_lock_nested(struct regulator_dev *rdev, >>> struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx) >>> { >>> - bool lock = false; >>> int ret = 0; >>> >>> - mutex_lock(®ulator_nesting_mutex); >>> + if (ww_ctx || !mutex_trylock_recursive(&rdev->mutex.base)) >> >> Have you seen comment to the mutex_trylock_recursive()? >> >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.8/source/include/linux/mutex.h#L205 >> >> * This function should not be used, _ever_. It is purely for hysterical GEM >> * raisins, and once those are gone this will be removed. >> >> I knew about this function and I don't think it's okay to use it, hence >> this is why there is that "nesting_mutex" and "owner" checking. >> >> If you disagree, then perhaps you should make another patch to remove >> the stale comment to trylock_recursive(). > > I think that reimplementing the function just to not use it is not the > right solution. The whole locking protocol is problematic and this patch > just uncovers one side of it.
It's not clear to me what is uncovered, the ref_cnt was always accessed under lock. Could you please explain in a more details?
Would be awesome if you could improve the code, but then you should un-deprecate the trylock_recursive() before making use of it. Maybe nobody will mind and it all will be good in the end.
|  |