Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: fix race on cpufreq online

[Viresh Kumar]

On 24-05-22, 13:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 1:15 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 13-05-22, 09:57, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 12-05-22, 12:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > Moreover, I'm not sure why the locking dance in store() is necessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > commit fdd320da84c6 ("cpufreq: Lock CPU online/offline in cpufreq_register_driver()")
> > > >
> > > > I get that, but I'm wondering if locking CPU hotplug from store() is
> > > > needed at all.  I mean, if we are in store(), we are holding an active
> > > > reference to the policy kobject, so the policy cannot go away until we
> > > > are done anyway.  Thus it should be sufficient to use the policy rwsem
> > > > for synchronization.
> > >
> > > I think after the current patchset is applied and we have the inactive
> > > policy check in store(), we won't required the dance after all.
> >
> > I was writing a patch for this and then thought maybe look at mails
> > around this time, when you sent the patch, and found the reason why we
> > need the locking dance :)
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20150729091136.GN7557@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

Actually no, this is for the lock in cpufreq_driver_register().

> Well, again, if we are in store(), we are holding a reference to the
> policy kobject, so this is not initialization time.

This is the commit which made the change.

commit 4f750c930822 ("cpufreq: Synchronize the cpufreq store_*() routines with CPU hotplug")

-- 
viresh