From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: Fix a circular lock dependency problem
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 10:36:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jJzXsKUH+SH5_Qs8C-A2=AdOL_RgOonuv62rx1FBjaYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1532368179-15263-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <1532368179-15263-3-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <20180723191627.GJ2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <0306d1b7-85d2-5e50-2b7c-466f0e978afa@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <0306d1b7-85d2-5e50-2b7c-466f0e978afa@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:27 PM, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/23/2018 03:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 01:49:39PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>> index b0dfd32..9cf02d7 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>> @@ -922,8 +922,22 @@ static ssize_t store(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr,
>>>      struct cpufreq_policy *policy = to_policy(kobj);
>>>      struct freq_attr *fattr = to_attr(attr);
>>>      ssize_t ret = -EINVAL;
>>> +    int retries = 3;
>>>
>>> -    cpus_read_lock();
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * cpus_read_trylock() is used here to work around a circular lock
>>> +     * dependency problem with respect to the cpufreq_register_driver().
>>> +     * With a simple retry loop, the chance of not able to get the
>>> +     * read lock is extremely small.
>>> +     */
>>> +    while (!cpus_read_trylock()) {
>>> +            if (retries-- <= 0)
>>> +                    return -EBUSY;
>>> +            /*
>>> +             * Sleep for about 50ms and retry again.
>>> +             */
>>> +            msleep(50);
>>> +    }
>> That's atrocious.
>>
>>
> I had thought about just returning an error if the trylock fails as CPU
> hotplug rarely happened. I can revert to that simple case if others have
> no objection.

Yes, you can return -EBUSY or -EAGAIN right away from here if the
cpus_read_trylock() is not successful.  There is not much reason for
the sysfs operation to continue in that case.