From: Seyediman Seyedarab <imandevel@gmail.com>
To: rafael@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
skhan@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linux.dev,
Seyediman Seyedarab <ImanDevel@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: fix locking order in store_local_boost to prevent deadlock
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:33:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250428043356.3169-1-ImanDevel@gmail.com> (raw)
Lockdep reports a possible circular locking dependency[1] when
writing to /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policyN/boost,
triggered by power-profiles-daemon at boot.
store_local_boost() acquires cpu_hotplug_lock *AFTER* policy->rwsem
has already been taken by the store() handler. However, the expected
locking hierarchy is to acquire cpu_hotplug_lock before policy->rwsem.
This inverted lock order creates a *theoretical* deadlock possibility.
Take cpu_hotplug_lock in the store() before down_write(&policy->rwsem),
and remove the internal cpus_read_lock/unlock pair
inside store_local_boost().
[1]
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.15.0-rc3-debug #28 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
power-profiles-/596 is trying to acquire lock:
ffffffffb147e910 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}, at: store_local_boost+0x6a/0xd0
but task is already holding lock:
ffff9eaa48377b80 (&policy->rwsem){++++}-{4:4}, at: store+0x37/0x90
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (&policy->rwsem){++++}-{4:4}:
down_write+0x29/0xb0
cpufreq_online+0x841/0xa00
cpufreq_add_dev+0x71/0x80
subsys_interface_register+0x14b/0x170
cpufreq_register_driver+0x154/0x250
amd_pstate_register_driver+0x36/0x70
amd_pstate_init+0x1e7/0x270
do_one_initcall+0x67/0x2c0
kernel_init_freeable+0x230/0x270
kernel_init+0x15/0x130
ret_from_fork+0x2c/0x50
ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20
-> #1 (subsys mutex#3){+.+.}-{4:4}:
__mutex_lock+0xc2/0x930
subsys_interface_register+0x83/0x170
cpufreq_register_driver+0x154/0x250
amd_pstate_register_driver+0x36/0x70
amd_pstate_init+0x1e7/0x270
do_one_initcall+0x67/0x2c0
kernel_init_freeable+0x230/0x270
kernel_init+0x15/0x130
ret_from_fork+0x2c/0x50
ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20
-> #0 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}:
__lock_acquire+0x1087/0x17e0
lock_acquire.part.0+0x66/0x1b0
cpus_read_lock+0x2a/0xc0
store_local_boost+0x6a/0xd0
store+0x50/0x90
kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x135/0x200
vfs_write+0x2ab/0x540
ksys_write+0x6c/0xe0
do_syscall_64+0xbb/0x1d0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x56/0x5e
Signed-off-by: Seyediman Seyedarab <ImanDevel@gmail.com>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index acf19b004..6e672dcba 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -653,10 +653,7 @@ static ssize_t store_local_boost(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
policy->boost_enabled = enable;
- cpus_read_lock();
ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(policy, enable);
- cpus_read_unlock();
-
if (ret) {
policy->boost_enabled = !policy->boost_enabled;
return ret;
@@ -1045,10 +1042,12 @@ static ssize_t store(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr,
if (!fattr->store)
return -EIO;
+ cpus_read_lock();
down_write(&policy->rwsem);
if (likely(!policy_is_inactive(policy)))
ret = fattr->store(policy, buf, count);
up_write(&policy->rwsem);
+ cpus_read_unlock();
return ret;
}
--
2.49.0
next reply other threads:[~2025-04-28 4:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-28 4:33 Seyediman Seyedarab [this message]
2025-04-28 13:25 ` [PATCH] cpufreq: fix locking order in store_local_boost to prevent deadlock Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250428043356.3169-1-ImanDevel@gmail.com \
--to=imandevel@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox