From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@codeaurora.org>
Cc: rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, juri.lelli@arm.com,
skannan@codeaurora.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Fix sugov_start versus sugov_update_shared race
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 08:55:09 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170707032509.GC1523@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1499363600-10732-1-git-send-email-markivx@codeaurora.org>
On 06-07-17, 10:53, Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
> 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 :
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-07 3:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-06 17:53 [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Fix sugov_start versus sugov_update_shared race Vikram Mulukutla
2017-07-06 20:48 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-07-07 3:25 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
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=20170707032509.GC1523@vireshk-i7 \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=markivx@codeaurora.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=skannan@codeaurora.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