From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E8FCC33CB7 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 06:28:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FB892073D for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 06:28:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="X7R55yAy"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Erj1y32A" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0FB892073D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=SrERARX2BYot0M5LktAxiq6M0vSg+PiJupN3S4D/RC0=; b=X7R55yAyvHVRJh taspU19f5ATMMSBrnQDWXtPpQsbBCzbIk2WPfV0tJJKZF8U4WgRhe7ExAZ0J0Pw+QDZbkVCJapzlQ 8KfJs/SwfMuARhwCY2bJk0FlLV8UwO7eEjzgzjdiqF78X756hkMLzsqya4o/ZaXcdA+TAnjBImTA7 842ghj1gHtLO27w1OHLG0ImcdnUixX6IEDHdOMSiSYO0wDd4r9aGfxc6jVBvxPEK3zd5kckkThjQt /J4ADG+9BZQHQ4H5ovW1B5K+dbQnIJqH+XmyBr0wzNf8FRNZvK57IJvn546Gv78AFGRj5nAyHmehi AgOn4726wsgkIDlTiKjQ==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1itQXd-0001qO-G0; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 06:28:05 +0000 Received: from mail-pl1-x643.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::643]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1itQXa-0001pE-UR for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 06:28:04 +0000 Received: by mail-pl1-x643.google.com with SMTP id f20so12736406plj.5 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:27:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ET0q8WYL5rkQ5IzRJ2JKF9s36w4Hlm44GgUbEbrS44E=; b=Erj1y32AGIZ/G/ywtpfnwzBkrrKgXEVyIRkm40EDXpAfTpeZ9W+XoFe11MWAqX2DUW 3ZPwcdJVrvnaNOOVRcOLi73URdiDDZu6Qb5oT+S1mUE5l4f488lKR/tR0EtU2k/+WEuz UswaBkpQ4lIMEZwRPRbxdyazKu52nH2naCRGGSvDBqKZGwPp7ee9iOPHTBGcOMMTIBlD /itR2YqyOfeYtOJv4DHZVyNgw3zND2hdh2JcrIhbDRtDTT7T3gqPGbRgMTx4z3yEbvSU PvQVJjKViJieiTBnCG65q59iOozdkd5RpIe1SDezO4zmZjDsSI/ZGi0ii9DhazxfVkWQ SfdA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ET0q8WYL5rkQ5IzRJ2JKF9s36w4Hlm44GgUbEbrS44E=; b=JONLl7bxS1knyfs/xdT9NidXJD45qvby5arX3o5edyy8R3w2wwj/NKkKo6vTwUlRvs RtIejtLf3ONXF7fTpx28dwcHaMc3IvUnLm1fw5YfTeDa37f6POZ/iYC8VNEaKOoHGoot rGs/fbDNcfVSlJfngJ65AkcRYh1huUcg8Q2Ao6Qo5eJS1M7lIXJcreRDIz9M39fv62zS rPOahh+NGg9TipqH8IMYvmrHIs5j3Z9Fg2JoTqAVjoioaiaXn/NTLcJJdNnw8U9n47aL 5aUsdtYUdTAiyhzUFFXBoAqjpn61d1NPGC87iw8jG0hQF9tEQA9ANrWpcCVZ+EVtnsro mQVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVI7eeweI4BU06YMLhL+sW/V3utNZOBwc3RL3HvuoBHWZg3jfpT VwK12JGqcJ+fSkf+jj0KVhE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxJSnRtEDcsAeHFLYuYgmxozPkFuG1tXw2UrBNICvQl0lo4UimdAnbGfJJmfT410oYAEZc8YQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d156:: with SMTP id t22mr21189542pjw.108.1579501679487; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:27:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([43.224.245.179]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x21sm37292863pfn.164.2020.01.19.22.27.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:27:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:27:56 +0800 From: chenqiwu To: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: brcmstb-avs: fix imbalance of cpufreq policy refcount Message-ID: <20200120062756.GA5802@cqw-OptiPlex-7050> References: <1579417750-21984-1-git-send-email-qiwuchen55@gmail.com> <20200120053250.igkwofqfzvmqb3c3@vireshk-i7> <20200120055822.GB5185@cqw-OptiPlex-7050> <20200120060134.izotrbzjvzk327zx@vireshk-i7> <20200120061356.GA5605@cqw-OptiPlex-7050> <20200120062126.nmxaqhcpqcojuihr@vireshk-i7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200120062126.nmxaqhcpqcojuihr@vireshk-i7> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200119_222802_985911_6555BE7C X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 25.85 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: f.fainelli@gmail.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, mmayer@broadcom.com, chenqiwu , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:51:26AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 20-01-20, 14:13, chenqiwu wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:31:34AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 20-01-20, 13:58, chenqiwu wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:02:50AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > On 19-01-20, 15:09, qiwuchen55@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > From: chenqiwu > > > > > > > > > > > > brcm_avs_cpufreq_get() calls cpufreq_cpu_get() to get the cpufreq policy, > > > > > > meanwhile, it also increments the kobject reference count to mark it busy. > > > > > > However, a corresponding call of cpufreq_cpu_put() is ignored to decrement > > > > > > the kobject reference count back, which may lead to a potential stuck risk > > > > > > that the cpuhp thread deadly waits for dropping of kobject refcount when > > > > > > cpufreq policy free. > > > > > > > > > > > > For fixing this bug, cpufreq_get_policy() is referenced to do a proper > > > > > > cpufreq_cpu_get()/cpufreq_cpu_put() and fill a policy copy for the user. > > > > > > If the policy return NULL, we just return 0 to hit the code path of > > > > > > cpufreq_driver->get. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: chenqiwu > > > > > > --- > > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > > > > > > index 77b0e5d..ee0d404 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > > > > > > @@ -452,8 +452,16 @@ static bool brcm_avs_is_firmware_loaded(struct private_data *priv) > > > > > > > > > > > > static unsigned int brcm_avs_cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu) > > > > > > { > > > > > > - struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); > > > > > > > > > > Why can't we just add a corresponding cpufreq_cpu_put() instead of all this ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > cpufreq_get_policy() does a proper cpufreq_cpu_get()/cpufreq_cpu_put(), > > > > meanwhile fills a policy copy for the user. It equals to using > > > > cpufreq_cpu_get() and a corresponding cpufreq_cpu_put() around access > > > > to the policy pointer. I think both methods are fine here. > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > cpufreq_get_policy() does an extra memcpy as well, which isn't required at all > > > in your case. > > > > > > -- > > > viresh > > > > Huha..Do you worry about the race conditon with cpufreq policy free path? > > No. I just worry about an unnecessary memcpy, nothing else. > Is there any question about this extra memcpy? Qiwu _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel