Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Set policy to non-NULL only after all hotplug online work is done

[Viresh Kumar]

On 24 February 2014 13:12, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 12:27 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>> The existing code sets the per CPU policy to a non-NULL value before all
>> the steps performed during the hotplug online path is done. Specifically,
>> this is done before the policy min/max, governors, etc are initialized for
>> the policy.  This in turn means that calls to cpufreq_cpu_get() return a
>> non-NULL policy before the policy/CPU is ready to be used.
>>
>> To fix this, move the update of per CPU policy to a valid value after all
>> the initialization steps for the policy are completed.
>>
>> Example kernel panic without this fix:
>> [  512.146185] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000020
>> [  512.146195] pgd = c0003000
>> [  512.146213] [00000020] *pgd=80000000004003, *pmd=00000000
>> [  512.146228] Internal error: Oops: 206 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
>> <snip>
>> [  512.146297] PC is at __cpufreq_governor+0x10/0x1ac
>> [  512.146312] LR is at cpufreq_update_policy+0x114/0x150
>> <snip>
>> [  512.149740] ---[ end trace f23a8defea6cd706 ]---
>> [  512.149761] Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception
>> [  513.152016] CPU0: stopping
>> [  513.154710] CPU: 0 PID: 7136 Comm: mpdecision Tainted: G      D W    3.10.0-gd727407-00074-g979ede8 #396
>> <snip>
>> [  513.317224] [<c0afe180>] (notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x68) from [<c02a23ac>] (__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x58)
>> [  513.327809] [<c02a23ac>] (__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x58) from [<c02a23d8>] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x14/0x1c)
>> [  513.339182] [<c02a23d8>] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x14/0x1c) from [<c0803c68>] (cpufreq_set_policy+0xd4/0x2b8)
>> [  513.349594] [<c0803c68>] (cpufreq_set_policy+0xd4/0x2b8) from [<c0803e7c>] (cpufreq_init_policy+0x30/0x98)
>> [  513.359231] [<c0803e7c>] (cpufreq_init_policy+0x30/0x98) from [<c0805a18>] (__cpufreq_add_dev.isra.17+0x4dc/0x7a4)
>> [  513.369560] [<c0805a18>] (__cpufreq_add_dev.isra.17+0x4dc/0x7a4) from [<c0805d38>] (cpufreq_cpu_callback+0x58/0x84)
>> [  513.379978] [<c0805d38>] (cpufreq_cpu_callback+0x58/0x84) from [<c0afe180>] (notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x68)
>> [  513.389704] [<c0afe180>] (notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x68) from [<c02812dc>] (__cpu_notify+0x28/0x44)
>> [  513.398728] [<c02812dc>] (__cpu_notify+0x28/0x44) from [<c0aeed90>] (_cpu_up+0xf4/0x1dc)
>> [  513.406797] [<c0aeed90>] (_cpu_up+0xf4/0x1dc) from [<c0aeeed4>] (cpu_up+0x5c/0x78)
>> [  513.414357] [<c0aeeed4>] (cpu_up+0x5c/0x78) from [<c0aec808>] (store_online+0x44/0x74)
>> [  513.422253] [<c0aec808>] (store_online+0x44/0x74) from [<c03a40f4>] (sysfs_write_file+0x108/0x14c)
>> [  513.431195] [<c03a40f4>] (sysfs_write_file+0x108/0x14c) from [<c03517d4>] (vfs_write+0xd0/0x180)
>> [  513.439958] [<c03517d4>] (vfs_write+0xd0/0x180) from [<c0351ca8>] (SyS_write+0x38/0x68)
>> [  513.447947] [<c0351ca8>] (SyS_write+0x38/0x68) from [<c0205de0>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x30)
>>
>> In this specific case, CPU0 set's CPU1's policy->governor in
>> cpufreq_init_policy() to NULL while CPU1 is using the policy->governor in
>> __cpufreq_governor().
>>
>
> Whoa! That's horrible! Can you please explain how exactly you
> triggered this? I'm curious...

:)

Actually I didn't understood his problem very well until now. I couldn't
get from his trace that which pointer was actually set to NULL here?
And hence what caused this crash?

Also, what Saravana just wrote here didn't looked like relevant at all.
i.e.:  policy->governor being set to NULL.

So what? It was set to NULL with a reason and it shouldn't cause
any crashes I hope. And also its sort of wrong to say that CPU0
has set governor for CPU1, as governor was set for a policy and
both CPUs were part of the same policy.

>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 10 +++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index cb003a6..d5ceb43 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1109,11 +1109,6 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif,
>>               goto err_set_policy_cpu;
>>       }
>>
>> -     write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>> -     for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus)
>> -             per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = policy;
>> -     write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>> -
>>       if (cpufreq_driver->get) {
>>               policy->cur = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
>
> If you move the per-cpu init further down, then what happens to the
> cpufreq_generic_get() that gets invoked here by some of the drivers?
> It will almost always fail (because policy will be NULL) and hence
> CPU online will be unsuccessful

Thanks, I was about to point that as well.

> (though you wont observe it because
> the error code is not bubbled up to the CPU hotplug core; perhaps we
> should).

Don't know :)

> IMHO, we should fix the synchronization in cpufreq_init_policy().
> I notice cpufreq_update_policy() as well as __cpufreq_governor() in
> your stack trace, which means cpufreq_set_policy() was involved.
> cpufreq_update_policy() takes the policy->rwsem for write, whereas
> cpufreq_init_policy() doesn't take that lock at all, which is clearly
> wrong.
>
> My guess is that, if we fix that locking, everything will be fine and
> you won't hit the bug. Would you like to give that a shot?

I am not sure about that guess as well. I first want to know what
went bad exactly..
--
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/