* [PATCH] cpufreq: dereference cpufreq_driver after check
@ 2013-02-11 14:37 Andy Shevchenko
2013-02-11 15:13 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2013-02-11 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cpufreq, linux-pm, Viresh Kumar, Nathan Zimmer; +Cc: Andy Shevchenko
Commit e1ee7c86 ("cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to use RCU")
introduces an RCU storage for cpufreq_driver. On Intel Medfield board we are
getting a warning during kernel boot.
[ 6.074511] ===============================
[ 6.078634] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
[ 6.082930] 3.8.0-rc6-next-20130208-00036-g83eb4b6-dirty #1058 Not tainted
[ 6.089748] -------------------------------
[ 6.093926] drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:1766 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
[ 6.101651]
[ 6.101651] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 6.101651]
[ 6.109659]
[ 6.109659] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
[ 6.116215] no locks held by swapper/0/1.
[ 6.120167]
[ 6.120167] stack backtrace:
[ 6.124516] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.8.0-rc6-next-20130208-00036-g83eb4b6-dirty #1058
[ 6.133470] Call Trace:
[ 6.135917] [<c1067669>] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xd4/0xdd
[ 6.141390] [<c181d642>] ? cpufreq_core_init+0x8e/0x8e
[ 6.146604] [<c1344879>] cpufreq_update_policy+0x71/0x1d7
[ 6.152081] [<c1069d2f>] ? __lock_acquire+0xca4/0xcd4
[ 6.157210] [<c1067ef0>] ? mark_lock+0x1f/0x209
[ 6.161820] [<c1068137>] ? mark_held_locks+0x5d/0x7d
[ 6.166862] [<c150c209>] ? __mutex_lock_common+0x2e0/0x344
[ 6.172425] [<c106825c>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x195
[ 6.178425] [<c150c3ae>] ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xe6/0x100
[ 6.184250] [<c106825c>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x195
[ 6.190248] [<c10682f7>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd
[ 6.195291] [<c181d642>] ? cpufreq_core_init+0x8e/0x8e
[ 6.200506] [<c150c3d0>] ? mutex_unlock+0x8/0xa
[ 6.205114] [<c181d642>] ? cpufreq_core_init+0x8e/0x8e
[ 6.210331] [<c181d68a>] cpufreq_stats_init+0x48/0xbd
[ 6.215461] [<c181d68a>] ? cpufreq_stats_init+0x48/0xbd
[ 6.220763] [<c181d642>] ? cpufreq_core_init+0x8e/0x8e
[ 6.225981] [<c1001085>] do_one_initcall+0x6c/0x10b
[ 6.230938] [<c17faa52>] ? kernel_init_freeable+0xf3/0x18e
[ 6.236501] [<c17faa68>] kernel_init_freeable+0x109/0x18e
[ 6.241978] [<c14fa2b4>] kernel_init+0x8/0xb4
[ 6.246412] [<c150e937>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x1b/0x28
[ 6.251889] [<c14fa2ac>] ? rest_init+0x108/0x108
The patch moves dereferencing part after policy check.
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 79511ab..7d84b205 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1763,13 +1763,15 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
struct cpufreq_policy *data = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
struct cpufreq_policy policy;
int ret;
- struct cpufreq_driver *driver = rcu_dereference(cpufreq_driver);
+ struct cpufreq_driver *driver;
if (!data) {
ret = -ENODEV;
goto no_policy;
}
+ driver = rcu_dereference(cpufreq_driver);
+
if (unlikely(lock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu))) {
ret = -EINVAL;
goto fail;
--
1.7.10.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: dereference cpufreq_driver after check
2013-02-11 14:37 [PATCH] cpufreq: dereference cpufreq_driver after check Andy Shevchenko
@ 2013-02-11 15:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-02-11 15:29 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2013-02-11 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko; +Cc: cpufreq, linux-pm, Nathan Zimmer, Fengguang Wu
On 11 February 2013 20:07, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Commit e1ee7c86 ("cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to use RCU")
> introduces an RCU storage for cpufreq_driver. On Intel Medfield board we are
> getting a warning during kernel boot.
>
> [ 6.074511] ===============================
> [ 6.078634] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> [ 6.082930] 3.8.0-rc6-next-20130208-00036-g83eb4b6-dirty #1058 Not tainted
> [ 6.089748] -------------------------------
> [ 6.093926] drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:1766 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> [ 6.101651]
> [ 6.101651] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 6.101651]
> [ 6.109659]
> [ 6.109659] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> [ 6.116215] no locks held by swapper/0/1.
> [ 6.120167]
> [ 6.120167] stack backtrace:
> [ 6.124516] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.8.0-rc6-next-20130208-00036-g83eb4b6-dirty #1058
> [ 6.133470] Call Trace:
> [ 6.135917] [<c1067669>] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xd4/0xdd
> [ 6.141390] [<c181d642>] ? cpufreq_core_init+0x8e/0x8e
> [ 6.146604] [<c1344879>] cpufreq_update_policy+0x71/0x1d7
> [ 6.152081] [<c1069d2f>] ? __lock_acquire+0xca4/0xcd4
> [ 6.157210] [<c1067ef0>] ? mark_lock+0x1f/0x209
> [ 6.161820] [<c1068137>] ? mark_held_locks+0x5d/0x7d
> [ 6.166862] [<c150c209>] ? __mutex_lock_common+0x2e0/0x344
> [ 6.172425] [<c106825c>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x195
> [ 6.178425] [<c150c3ae>] ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xe6/0x100
> [ 6.184250] [<c106825c>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x195
> [ 6.190248] [<c10682f7>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd
> [ 6.195291] [<c181d642>] ? cpufreq_core_init+0x8e/0x8e
> [ 6.200506] [<c150c3d0>] ? mutex_unlock+0x8/0xa
> [ 6.205114] [<c181d642>] ? cpufreq_core_init+0x8e/0x8e
> [ 6.210331] [<c181d68a>] cpufreq_stats_init+0x48/0xbd
> [ 6.215461] [<c181d68a>] ? cpufreq_stats_init+0x48/0xbd
> [ 6.220763] [<c181d642>] ? cpufreq_core_init+0x8e/0x8e
> [ 6.225981] [<c1001085>] do_one_initcall+0x6c/0x10b
> [ 6.230938] [<c17faa52>] ? kernel_init_freeable+0xf3/0x18e
> [ 6.236501] [<c17faa68>] kernel_init_freeable+0x109/0x18e
> [ 6.241978] [<c14fa2b4>] kernel_init+0x8/0xb4
> [ 6.246412] [<c150e937>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x1b/0x28
> [ 6.251889] [<c14fa2ac>] ? rest_init+0x108/0x108
>
> The patch moves dereferencing part after policy check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 79511ab..7d84b205 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1763,13 +1763,15 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
> struct cpufreq_policy *data = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> struct cpufreq_policy policy;
> int ret;
> - struct cpufreq_driver *driver = rcu_dereference(cpufreq_driver);
> + struct cpufreq_driver *driver;
>
> if (!data) {
> ret = -ENODEV;
> goto no_policy;
> }
>
> + driver = rcu_dereference(cpufreq_driver);
> +
Hi Andy,
I don't quite understand why this warning came at the first place and how it
got fixed :(
Another thing, rcu patch is already dropped by Rafael for 3.9 and isn't there in
linux-next.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: dereference cpufreq_driver after check
2013-02-11 15:13 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2013-02-11 15:29 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2013-02-11 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar; +Cc: cpufreq, linux-pm, Nathan Zimmer, Fengguang Wu
On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 20:43 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11 February 2013 20:07, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > Commit e1ee7c86 ("cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to use RCU")
> > introduces an RCU storage for cpufreq_driver. On Intel Medfield board we are
> > getting a warning during kernel boot.
> >
> > [ 6.074511] ===============================
> > [ 6.078634] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
> > [ 6.082930] 3.8.0-rc6-next-20130208-00036-g83eb4b6-dirty #1058 Not tainted
> > [ 6.089748] -------------------------------
> > [ 6.093926] drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:1766 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> > [ 6.101651]
> > [ 6.101651] other info that might help us debug this:
> > [ 6.101651]
> > [ 6.109659]
> > [ 6.109659] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
> > [ 6.116215] no locks held by swapper/0/1.
> > [ 6.120167]
> > [ 6.120167] stack backtrace:
> > [ 6.124516] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.8.0-rc6-next-20130208-00036-g83eb4b6-dirty #1058
> > [ 6.133470] Call Trace:
> > [ 6.135917] [<c1067669>] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xd4/0xdd
> > [ 6.141390] [<c181d642>] ? cpufreq_core_init+0x8e/0x8e
> > [ 6.146604] [<c1344879>] cpufreq_update_policy+0x71/0x1d7
> > [ 6.152081] [<c1069d2f>] ? __lock_acquire+0xca4/0xcd4
> > [ 6.157210] [<c1067ef0>] ? mark_lock+0x1f/0x209
> > [ 6.161820] [<c1068137>] ? mark_held_locks+0x5d/0x7d
> > [ 6.166862] [<c150c209>] ? __mutex_lock_common+0x2e0/0x344
> > [ 6.172425] [<c106825c>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x195
> > [ 6.178425] [<c150c3ae>] ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xe6/0x100
> > [ 6.184250] [<c106825c>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x105/0x195
> > [ 6.190248] [<c10682f7>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd
> > [ 6.195291] [<c181d642>] ? cpufreq_core_init+0x8e/0x8e
> > [ 6.200506] [<c150c3d0>] ? mutex_unlock+0x8/0xa
> > [ 6.205114] [<c181d642>] ? cpufreq_core_init+0x8e/0x8e
> > [ 6.210331] [<c181d68a>] cpufreq_stats_init+0x48/0xbd
> > [ 6.215461] [<c181d68a>] ? cpufreq_stats_init+0x48/0xbd
> > [ 6.220763] [<c181d642>] ? cpufreq_core_init+0x8e/0x8e
> > [ 6.225981] [<c1001085>] do_one_initcall+0x6c/0x10b
> > [ 6.230938] [<c17faa52>] ? kernel_init_freeable+0xf3/0x18e
> > [ 6.236501] [<c17faa68>] kernel_init_freeable+0x109/0x18e
> > [ 6.241978] [<c14fa2b4>] kernel_init+0x8/0xb4
> > [ 6.246412] [<c150e937>] ret_from_kernel_thread+0x1b/0x28
> > [ 6.251889] [<c14fa2ac>] ? rest_init+0x108/0x108
> >
> > The patch moves dereferencing part after policy check.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index 79511ab..7d84b205 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -1763,13 +1763,15 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
> > struct cpufreq_policy *data = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> > struct cpufreq_policy policy;
> > int ret;
> > - struct cpufreq_driver *driver = rcu_dereference(cpufreq_driver);
> > + struct cpufreq_driver *driver;
> >
> > if (!data) {
> > ret = -ENODEV;
> > goto no_policy;
> > }
> >
> > + driver = rcu_dereference(cpufreq_driver);
> > +
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> I don't quite understand why this warning came at the first place and how it
> got fixed :(
I didn't do deep investigation, I think the cpufreq policy is not
defined for Intel Medfield on that stage during boot. However, it sounds
strange, and probably David Woodhouse or someone who knows this area
better could explain that.
> Another thing, rcu patch is already dropped by Rafael for 3.9 and isn't there in
> linux-next.
Just rebased against recent linux-next. Indeed, there is no such thingy
anymore.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-02-11 15:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-02-11 14:37 [PATCH] cpufreq: dereference cpufreq_driver after check Andy Shevchenko
2013-02-11 15:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-02-11 15:29 ` Andy Shevchenko
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).