Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: serialize calls to __cpufreq_governor()

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Sun Sep 01 2013 - 16:16:27 EST


On Sunday, September 01, 2013 09:30:49 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 1 September 2013 18:58, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 01, 2013 10:56:02 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> We can't take a big lock around __cpufreq_governor() as this causes recursive
> >> locking for some cases. But calls to this routine must be serialized for every
> >> policy.
> >
> > Care to explain here why it must be serialized?
>
> Yes, added that to the attached patches (Added reported-by too):
>
> commit dc51771506b113b998c49c3be2db0fb88bb92153
> Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat Aug 31 17:48:23 2013 +0530
>
> cpufreq: serialize calls to __cpufreq_governor()
>
> We can't take a big lock around __cpufreq_governor() as this
> causes recursive
> locking for some cases. But calls to this routine must be
> serialized for every
> policy. Otherwise we can see some unpredictable events.
>
> For example, consider following scenario:
>
> __cpufreq_remove_dev()
> __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
> policy->governor->governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
> cpufreq_governor_dbs()
> case CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP:
> mutex_destroy(&cpu_cdbs->timer_mutex)
> cpu_cdbs->cur_policy = NULL;
> <PREEMPT>
> store()
> __cpufreq_set_policy()
> __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
> policy->governor->governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
> case CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS:
> mutex_lock(&cpu_cdbs->timer_mutex); <-- Warning (destroyed mutex)
> if (policy->max < cpu_cdbs->cur_policy->cur) <- cur_policy == NULL
>
> And so store() will eventually result in a crash cur_policy is already NULL;
>
> Lets introduce another variable which would guarantee serialization here.
>
> Reported-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> >> Lets introduce another variable which would guarantee serialization here.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 ++++++-
> >> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 1 +
> >> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> index f320a20..4d5723db 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >> @@ -1692,13 +1692,15 @@ static int __cpufreq_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >> policy->cpu, event);
> >>
> >> mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
> >> - if ((policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START)) ||
> >> + if (policy->governor_busy ||
> >> + (policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START)) ||
> >
> > Again, broken white space, but I can fix it up.
>
> Sorry, what exactly.. Sorry couldn't understand it :(

The second tab is one too many, I usually write such things like this:

if (policy->governor_busy
|| (policy->governor_enabled && event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START)
|| ...

Then it is much easier to distinguish the conditional code from the condition
itself.


--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/