linux-pm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@codeaurora.org>
To: rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Cc: juri.lelli@arm.com, skannan@codeaurora.org,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@codeaurora.org>
Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Fix sugov_start versus sugov_update_shared race
Date: Thu,  6 Jul 2017 10:53:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1499363600-10732-1-git-send-email-markivx@codeaurora.org> (raw)

With a shared policy in place, when one of the CPUs in the policy is
hotplugged out and then brought back online, sugov_stop and
sugov_start are called in order.

sugov_stop removes utilization hooks for each CPU in the policy and
does nothing else in the for_each_cpu loop. sugov_start on the other
hand iterates through the CPUs in the policy and re-initializes the
per-cpu structure _and_ adds the utilization hook. This implies that
the scheduler is allowed to invoke a CPU's utilization update hook
when the rest of the per-cpu structures have yet to be re-inited.

Apart from some strange values in tracepoints this doesn't cause a
problem, but if we do end up accessing a pointer from the per-cpu
sugov_cpu structure somewhere in the sugov_update_shared path,
we will likely see crashes since the memset for another CPU in the
policy is free to race with sugov_update_shared from the CPU that is
ready to go. So let's fix this now to first init all per-cpu
structures, and then add the per-cpu utilization update hooks all at
once.

Signed-off-by: Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@codeaurora.org>
---
 kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
index 076a2e3..29a3970 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
@@ -610,6 +610,11 @@ static int sugov_start(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 		sg_cpu->sg_policy = sg_policy;
 		sg_cpu->flags = SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT;
 		sg_cpu->iowait_boost_max = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
+	}
+
+	for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus) {
+		struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu = &per_cpu(sugov_cpu, cpu);
+
 		cpufreq_add_update_util_hook(cpu, &sg_cpu->update_util,
 					     policy_is_shared(policy) ?
 							sugov_update_shared :
-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

             reply	other threads:[~2017-07-06 17:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-07-06 17:53 Vikram Mulukutla [this message]
2017-07-06 20:48 ` [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Fix sugov_start versus sugov_update_shared race Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-07-07  3:25 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-07-12 21:33   ` 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=1499363600-10732-1-git-send-email-markivx@codeaurora.org \
    --to=markivx@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=skannan@codeaurora.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).