From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
Ben Slusky <sluskyb@paranoiacs.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: [RFC patch] cpufreq: fix circular locking in teardown
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 15:12:02 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090510191202.GA14894@Krystal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2f11576a0905100822y5507a9f7m6f9aa0fcc05ac18@mail.gmail.com>
* KOSAKI Motohiro (kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com) wrote:
> Hi
>
> my box output following warnings.
> it seems regression by commit 7ccc7608b836e58fbacf65ee4f8eefa288e86fac.
>
> A: work -> do_dbs_timer() -> cpu_policy_rwsem
> B: store() -> cpu_policy_rwsem -> cpufreq_governor_dbs() -> work
>
>
Hrm, I think it must be due to my attempt to fix the timer teardown race
in ondemand governor mixed with new locking behavior in 2.6.30-rc.
The rwlock seems to be taken around the whole call to
cpufreq_governor_dbs(), when it should be only taken around accesses to
the locked data, and especially *not* around the call to
dbs_timer_exit().
Reverting my fix attempt would put the teardown race back in place
(replacing the cancel_delayed_work_sync by cancel_delayed_work).
Instead, a proper fix would imply modifying this critical section :
cpufreq.c: __cpufreq_remove_dev()
...
if (cpufreq_driver->target)
__cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu);
To make sure the __cpufreq_governor() callback is not called with rwsem
held. This would allow execution of cancel_delayed_work_sync() without
being nested within the rwsem.
Here is a first cut at a RFC patch for cpufreq.c locking. This is
currently untested.
Applies on top of the 2.6.30-rc5 tree with
cpufreq-fix-timer-teardown-in-conservative-governor.patch
cpufreq-fix-timer-teardown-in-ondemand-governor.patch
already applied. Should fix circular dep in teardown of both conservative and
ondemande governors. At a first glance, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP does not seem to modify
the policy, therefore this locking seemed unneeded.
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
CC: Ben Slusky <sluskyb@paranoiacs.org>
CC: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
CC: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6-lttng/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6-lttng.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2009-05-10 14:41:53.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6-lttng/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c 2009-05-10 14:42:29.000000000 -0400
@@ -1070,11 +1070,11 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct s
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
#endif
+ unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu);
+
if (cpufreq_driver->target)
__cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
- unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu);
-
kobject_put(&data->kobj);
/* we need to make sure that the underlying kobj is actually
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-10 19:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-10 15:22 lockdep warnings: cpufreq ondemand gorvernor possibly circular locking KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-10 18:04 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-10 23:13 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-10 19:12 ` Mathieu Desnoyers [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=20090510191202.GA14894@Krystal \
--to=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=sluskyb@paranoiacs.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