Re: [PATCH] remove rwsem lock from CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP call (second call site)

Dave Young
2009-06-09T01:15:41Z

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Mathieu
Desnoyers<mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> wrote:
> * Dave Jones (davej@redhat.com) wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 08:48:45AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>
>>  > > > >> Bug-Entry       : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13475
>>  > > > >> Subject         : suspend/hibernate lockdep warning
>>  > > > >> References      : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124393723321241&w=4
>>  > > >
>>  > > > I suspect the following commit, after revert this patch I test 5 times
>>  > > > without lockdep warnings.
>>  > > >
>>  > > > commit b14893a62c73af0eca414cfed505b8c09efc613c
>>  > > > Author: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
>>  > > > Date:   Sun May 17 10:30:45 2009 -0400
>>  > > >
>>  > > >        [CPUFREQ] fix timer teardown in ondemand governor
>>  > >
>>  > > The patch is probably not at fault here. I suspect it's some latent bug
>>  > > that simply got exposed by the change to cancel_delayed_work_sync(). In
>>  > > any case, Mathieu, can you take a look at this please?
>>  >
>>  > Yes, it's been looked at and discussed on the cpufreq ML. The short
>>  > answer is that they plan to re-engineer cpufreq and remove the policy
>>  > rwlock taken around almost every operations at the cpufreq level.
>>  >
>>  > The short-term solution, which is recognised as ugly, would be do to the
>>  > following before doing the cancel_delayed_work_sync() :
>>  >
>>  > unlock policy rwlock write lock
>>  >
>>  > lock policy rwlock write lock
>>  >
>>  > It basically works because this rwlock is unneeded for teardown, hence
>>  > the future re-work planned.
>>  >
>>  > I'm sorry I cannot prepare a patch current... I've got quite a few pages
>>  > of Ph.D. thesis due for the beginning of July.
>>
>> I'm kinda scared to touch this code at all for .30 due to the number of
>> unexpected gotchas we seem to run into every time we touch something
>> locking related.  So I'm inclined to just live with the lockdep warning
>> for .30, and see how the real fixes look for .31, and push them back
>> as -stable updates if they work out.
>>
>>
>> Venki, what are your thoughts?
>>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I've looked through the cpufreq code, and the following patch should
> address the call site I've missed in commit
> 42a06f2166f2f6f7bf04f32b4e823eacdceafdc9. I've followed all
> __cpufreq_set_policy call sites within cpufreq.c to make sure they all
> hold the rwsem write lock. An extra round of review would be good
> though.
>
> Can someone try the following patch and see if it fixes the regression ?

Bad news, I have tried the patch and It does not fix the regression.

> My test machine is currently busy running long formal verifications, and
> therefore unavailable for kernel patch testing. It compiles fine on a
> 2.6.30-rc5 kernel with my (now mainlined) cpufreq patches applied.
>
> Mathieu
>
>
> remove rwsem lock from CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP call (second call site)
>
> commit  42a06f2166f2f6f7bf04f32b4e823eacdceafdc9
>
> Missed a call site for CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP to remove the rwlock taken around the
> teardown. To make a long story short, the rwlock write-lock causes a circular
> dependency with cancel_delayed_work_sync(), because the timer handler takes the
> read lock.
>
> Note that all callers to __cpufreq_set_policy are taking the rwsem. All sysfs
> callers (writers) hold the write rwsem at the earliest sysfs calling stage.
>
> However, the rwlock write-lock is not needed upon governor stop.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>
> CC: rjw@sisk.pl
> CC: mingo@elte.hu
> CC: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
> CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
> CC: Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>
> CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
> CC: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
> CC: trenn@suse.de
> CC: sven.wegener@stealer.net
> CC: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
> CC: cpufreq@vger.kernel.org
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |   11 ++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6-lttng/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6-lttng.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c      2009-06-08 10:20:48.000000000 -0400
> +++ linux-2.6-lttng/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c   2009-06-08 10:48:52.000000000 -0400
> @@ -1697,8 +1697,17 @@ static int __cpufreq_set_policy(struct c
>                        dprintk("governor switch\n");
>
>                        /* end old governor */
> -                       if (data->governor)
> +                       if (data->governor) {
> +                               /*
> +                                * Need to release the rwsem around governor
> +                                * stop due to lock dependency between
> +                                * cancel_delayed_work_sync and the read lock
> +                                * taken in the delayed work handler.
> +                                */
> +                               unlock_policy_rwsem_write(data->cpu);
>                                __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
> +                               lock_policy_rwsem_write(data->cpu);
> +                       }
>
>                        /* start new governor */
>                        data->governor = policy->governor;
>
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

--
Regards
dave