From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq, powernow-k8: Fix usage of smp_processor_id()
 in preemptible code
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:18:42 +0900
Message-ID: <20121010001842.GA27553@localhost>
References: <20121009193844.GC7724@alberich>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        bh=4IfgNVwpcF5ZITan4JOo8MQOfKvQVAmrbmbLtBWrlPg=;
        b=PTQyiC7EMDSkkRf0VzYlsXVKXUP51hsmboLAXgmXmfWoPbxKcEAs/fwnnCmMYrVTsk
         pTiYuk6Q4vT2AA5ZztjAJFUivZqhpFMJkSjgRFmyAodQKRJpSjwbFzkAsB2K7IKeDKPg
         G4kIKGM7yZUpjQ+hheV+uEj/g4/wfpplkPEwH8U3Zy18p/yKRXjr1HaR7LBf4oX+C/v6
         BoFk0Jao30NzgIeC3cDBxpfGgKpJ/XvV2B5abC2P/lOUqaKeKU37JqHdxPffrJaDLlJX
         NEQW0oVSNuIn13jnB46POkW+Qsoul+E7Y3oRJTjijk1Pj/UTor+sY9CjyyRfG6FJg2+X
         UoXQ==
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121009193844.GC7724@alberich>
Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <cpufreq.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org

Hello,

On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 09:38:44PM +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> 
> Commit 6889125b8b4e09c5e53e6ecab3433bed1ce198c9
> (cpufreq/powernow-k8: workqueue user shouldn't migrate the kworker to another CPU)
> causes powernow-k8 to trigger a preempt warning, e.g.:
> 
>   BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: cpufreq/3776
>   caller is powernowk8_target+0x20/0x49
>   Pid: 3776, comm: cpufreq Not tainted 3.6.0 #9
>   Call Trace:
>    [<ffffffff8125b447>] debug_smp_processor_id+0xc7/0xe0
>    [<ffffffff814877e7>] powernowk8_target+0x20/0x49
>    [<ffffffff81482b02>] __cpufreq_driver_target+0x82/0x8a
>    [<ffffffff81484fc6>] cpufreq_governor_performance+0x4e/0x54
>    [<ffffffff81482c50>] __cpufreq_governor+0x8c/0xc9
>    [<ffffffff81482e6f>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x1a9/0x21e
>    [<ffffffff814839af>] store_scaling_governor+0x16f/0x19b
>    [<ffffffff81484f16>] ? cpufreq_update_policy+0x124/0x124
>    [<ffffffff8162b4a5>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x2c/0x49
>    [<ffffffff81483640>] store+0x60/0x88
>    [<ffffffff811708c0>] sysfs_write_file+0xf4/0x130
>    [<ffffffff8111243b>] vfs_write+0xb5/0x151
>    [<ffffffff811126e0>] sys_write+0x4a/0x71
>    [<ffffffff816319a9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
...
> -	/*
> -	 * Must run on @pol->cpu.  cpufreq core is responsible for ensuring
> -	 * that we're bound to the current CPU and pol->cpu stays online.
> -	 */

Urgh... so this wasn't true?  Well, the perils of the last minute
changes.

> -	if (smp_processor_id() == pol->cpu)
> -		return powernowk8_target_fn(&pta);
> -	else
> -		return work_on_cpu(pol->cpu, powernowk8_target_fn, &pta);
> +	this_cpu = get_cpu();
> +	if (this_cpu == pol->cpu) {
> +		ret = powernowk8_target_fn(&pta);
> +		put_cpu();
> +	} else {
> +		put_cpu();
> +		ret = work_on_cpu(pol->cpu, powernowk8_target_fn, &pta);
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;

Looking at the code, yes, I think the above is correct.  Rafael, can
you please confirm?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun