From: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" <tixy@linaro.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org,
cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] cpufreq: unlock correct rwsem while updating policy->cpu
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:24:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1379409886.3413.14.camel@linaro1.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <63ac1edc637ef2c8cf05579972506ad5365948c1.1379393377.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
On Tue, 2013-09-17 at 10:22 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Current code looks like this:
>
> WARN_ON(lock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu));
> update_policy_cpu(policy, new_cpu);
> unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu);
>
> {lock|unlock}_policy_rwsem_write(cpu) takes/releases policy->cpu's rwsem.
> Because cpu is changing with the call to update_policy_cpu(), the
> unlock_policy_rwsem_write() will release the incorrect lock.
>
> The right solution would be to release the same lock as was taken earlier. Also
> update_policy_cpu() was also called from cpufreq_add_dev() without any locks and
> so its better if we move this locking to inside update_policy_cpu().
>
> Reported-and-Tested-by: Jon Medhurst<tixy@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
> Hi Rafael,
>
> Only one patch is sent now as other one is unchanged.
This patch fixes a regression introduced in 3.12 by commit f9ba680d23
(cpufreq: Extract the handover of policy cpu to a helper function).
The other patch is a tidyup of long-standing code.
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 43c24aa..1479522 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -952,9 +952,20 @@ static void update_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int cpu)
> if (cpu == policy->cpu)
> return;
>
> + /*
> + * Take direct locks as lock_policy_rwsem_write wouldn't work here.
> + * Also lock for last cpu is enough here as contention will happen only
> + * after policy->cpu is changed and after it is changed, other threads
> + * will try to acquire lock for new cpu. And policy is already updated
> + * by then.
> + */
> + down_write(&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, policy->cpu));
> +
> policy->last_cpu = policy->cpu;
> policy->cpu = cpu;
>
> + up_write(&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, policy->last_cpu));
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_TABLE
> cpufreq_frequency_table_update_policy_cpu(policy);
> #endif
> @@ -1203,9 +1214,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare(struct device *dev,
>
> new_cpu = cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(policy, cpu, frozen);
> if (new_cpu >= 0) {
> - WARN_ON(lock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu));
> update_policy_cpu(policy, new_cpu);
> - unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu);
>
> if (!frozen) {
> pr_debug("%s: policy Kobject moved to cpu: %d "
--
Tixy
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-17 9:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-17 4:52 [PATCH V2 1/2] cpufreq: unlock correct rwsem while updating policy->cpu Viresh Kumar
2013-09-17 9:24 ` Jon Medhurst (Tixy) [this message]
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=1379409886.3413.14.camel@linaro1.home \
--to=tixy@linaro.org \
--cc=cpufreq@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).