On 29/11/18 10:18, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 29/11/2018 08:04, Juri Lelli wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >> With or without this patch, it is the case:
> >>
> >> task1 task2
> >> | |
> >> read("/sys/.../cpu1/cpu_capacity) |
> >> | write("/sys/.../cpu1/cpu_capacity")
> >> read("/sys/.../cpu2/cpu_capacity) |
> >>
> >>
> >> There is no guarantee userspace can have a consistent view of the
> >> capacity. As soon as it reads a capacity, it can be changed in its back.
> >
> > True, but w/o the mutex task1 could read different cpu_capacity values
> > for a cluster (it actually can also with current implementation, we
> > should grab the mutex in the read path as well if we want to avoid
> > this).
>
> Even if the mutex is on the read path, the userspace can see different
> capacities because it will read the cpu_capacity per cpu directory.
>
> The mutex will be take when reading cpu0/cpu_capacity, not for
> cpu[0-9]/cpu_capacity. Between two reads, a write can happen because the
> lock is released in between.
>
> Do you agree with the patch ? Or do you want me to drop it ?
I don't actually have cases at hand that are showing regression with it,
I was just trying to understand if we might potentially hit problems in
the future. So, I'm not against this patch. :-)
