stable.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ACPI: thermal: Do not call acpi_thermal_check() directly" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree
@ 2021-01-30 15:21 gregkh
  2021-02-04 12:32 ` [PATCH] ACPI: thermal: Do not call acpi_thermal_check() directly Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: gregkh @ 2021-01-30 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rafael.j.wysocki, bigeasy, stable, stephen.berman; +Cc: stable


The patch below does not apply to the 5.4-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm
tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit
id to <stable@vger.kernel.org>.

thanks,

greg k-h

------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------

From 81b704d3e4674e09781d331df73d76675d5ad8cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 19:34:22 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: thermal: Do not call acpi_thermal_check() directly

Calling acpi_thermal_check() from acpi_thermal_notify() directly
is problematic if _TMP triggers Notify () on the thermal zone for
which it has been evaluated (which happens on some systems), because
it causes a new acpi_thermal_notify() invocation to be queued up
every time and if that takes place too often, an indefinite number of
pending work items may accumulate in kacpi_notify_wq over time.

Besides, it is not really useful to queue up a new invocation of
acpi_thermal_check() if one of them is pending already.

For these reasons, rework acpi_thermal_notify() to queue up a thermal
check instead of calling acpi_thermal_check() directly and only allow
one thermal check to be pending at a time.  Moreover, only allow one
acpi_thermal_check_fn() instance at a time to run
thermal_zone_device_update() for one thermal zone and make it return
early if it sees other instances running for the same thermal zone.

While at it, fold acpi_thermal_check() into acpi_thermal_check_fn(),
as it is only called from there after the other changes made here.

[This issue appears to have been exposed by commit 6d25be5782e4
 ("sched/core, workqueues: Distangle worker accounting from rq
 lock"), but it is unclear why it was not visible earlier.]

BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208877
Reported-by: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net>
Diagnosed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net>
Cc: All applicable <stable@vger.kernel.org>

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
index 12c0ece746f0..859b1de31ddc 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
@@ -174,6 +174,8 @@ struct acpi_thermal {
 	struct thermal_zone_device *thermal_zone;
 	int kelvin_offset;	/* in millidegrees */
 	struct work_struct thermal_check_work;
+	struct mutex thermal_check_lock;
+	refcount_t thermal_check_count;
 };
 
 /* --------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -495,14 +497,6 @@ static int acpi_thermal_get_trip_points(struct acpi_thermal *tz)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static void acpi_thermal_check(void *data)
-{
-	struct acpi_thermal *tz = data;
-
-	thermal_zone_device_update(tz->thermal_zone,
-				   THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
-}
-
 /* sys I/F for generic thermal sysfs support */
 
 static int thermal_get_temp(struct thermal_zone_device *thermal, int *temp)
@@ -900,6 +894,12 @@ static void acpi_thermal_unregister_thermal_zone(struct acpi_thermal *tz)
                                  Driver Interface
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
 
+static void acpi_queue_thermal_check(struct acpi_thermal *tz)
+{
+	if (!work_pending(&tz->thermal_check_work))
+		queue_work(acpi_thermal_pm_queue, &tz->thermal_check_work);
+}
+
 static void acpi_thermal_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
 {
 	struct acpi_thermal *tz = acpi_driver_data(device);
@@ -910,17 +910,17 @@ static void acpi_thermal_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
 
 	switch (event) {
 	case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_TEMPERATURE:
-		acpi_thermal_check(tz);
+		acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
 		break;
 	case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_THRESHOLDS:
 		acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS);
-		acpi_thermal_check(tz);
+		acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
 		acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
 						  dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
 		break;
 	case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_DEVICES:
 		acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES);
-		acpi_thermal_check(tz);
+		acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
 		acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
 						  dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
 		break;
@@ -1020,7 +1020,25 @@ static void acpi_thermal_check_fn(struct work_struct *work)
 {
 	struct acpi_thermal *tz = container_of(work, struct acpi_thermal,
 					       thermal_check_work);
-	acpi_thermal_check(tz);
+
+	/*
+	 * In general, it is not sufficient to check the pending bit, because
+	 * subsequent instances of this function may be queued after one of them
+	 * has started running (e.g. if _TMP sleeps).  Avoid bailing out if just
+	 * one of them is running, though, because it may have done the actual
+	 * check some time ago, so allow at least one of them to block on the
+	 * mutex while another one is running the update.
+	 */
+	if (!refcount_dec_not_one(&tz->thermal_check_count))
+		return;
+
+	mutex_lock(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
+
+	thermal_zone_device_update(tz->thermal_zone, THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
+
+	refcount_inc(&tz->thermal_check_count);
+
+	mutex_unlock(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
 }
 
 static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device)
@@ -1052,6 +1070,8 @@ static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device)
 	if (result)
 		goto free_memory;
 
+	refcount_set(&tz->thermal_check_count, 3);
+	mutex_init(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
 	INIT_WORK(&tz->thermal_check_work, acpi_thermal_check_fn);
 
 	pr_info(PREFIX "%s [%s] (%ld C)\n", acpi_device_name(device),
@@ -1117,7 +1137,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_resume(struct device *dev)
 		tz->state.active |= tz->trips.active[i].flags.enabled;
 	}
 
-	queue_work(acpi_thermal_pm_queue, &tz->thermal_check_work);
+	acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
 
 	return AE_OK;
 }


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* [PATCH] ACPI: thermal: Do not call  acpi_thermal_check() directly
  2021-01-30 15:21 FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ACPI: thermal: Do not call acpi_thermal_check() directly" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree gregkh
@ 2021-02-04 12:32 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
  2021-02-04 15:05   ` Greg KH
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior @ 2021-02-04 12:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: stable; +Cc: rafael.j.wysocki, stephen.berman

Upstream commit 81b704d3e4674e09781d331df73d76675d5ad8cb

Applies to 5.4-stable tree                     
Applies to 4.19-stable tree
Applies to 4.14-stable tree

----------->8---------------

From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 19:34:22 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: thermal: Do not call acpi_thermal_check() directly

Calling acpi_thermal_check() from acpi_thermal_notify() directly
is problematic if _TMP triggers Notify () on the thermal zone for
which it has been evaluated (which happens on some systems), because
it causes a new acpi_thermal_notify() invocation to be queued up
every time and if that takes place too often, an indefinite number of
pending work items may accumulate in kacpi_notify_wq over time.

Besides, it is not really useful to queue up a new invocation of
acpi_thermal_check() if one of them is pending already.

For these reasons, rework acpi_thermal_notify() to queue up a thermal
check instead of calling acpi_thermal_check() directly and only allow
one thermal check to be pending at a time.  Moreover, only allow one
acpi_thermal_check_fn() instance at a time to run
thermal_zone_device_update() for one thermal zone and make it return
early if it sees other instances running for the same thermal zone.

While at it, fold acpi_thermal_check() into acpi_thermal_check_fn(),
as it is only called from there after the other changes made here.

[This issue appears to have been exposed by commit 6d25be5782e4
 ("sched/core, workqueues: Distangle worker accounting from rq
 lock"), but it is unclear why it was not visible earlier.]

BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208877
Reported-by: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net>
Diagnosed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net>
Cc: All applicable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
[bigeasy: Backported to v5.4.y]
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
 drivers/acpi/thermal.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
index d831a61e0010e..383c7029d3cee 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
@@ -174,6 +174,8 @@ struct acpi_thermal {
 	int tz_enabled;
 	int kelvin_offset;
 	struct work_struct thermal_check_work;
+	struct mutex thermal_check_lock;
+	refcount_t thermal_check_count;
 };
 
 /* --------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -494,17 +496,6 @@ static int acpi_thermal_get_trip_points(struct acpi_thermal *tz)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static void acpi_thermal_check(void *data)
-{
-	struct acpi_thermal *tz = data;
-
-	if (!tz->tz_enabled)
-		return;
-
-	thermal_zone_device_update(tz->thermal_zone,
-				   THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
-}
-
 /* sys I/F for generic thermal sysfs support */
 
 static int thermal_get_temp(struct thermal_zone_device *thermal, int *temp)
@@ -538,6 +529,8 @@ static int thermal_get_mode(struct thermal_zone_device *thermal,
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static void acpi_thermal_check_fn(struct work_struct *work);
+
 static int thermal_set_mode(struct thermal_zone_device *thermal,
 				enum thermal_device_mode mode)
 {
@@ -563,7 +556,7 @@ static int thermal_set_mode(struct thermal_zone_device *thermal,
 		ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO,
 			"%s kernel ACPI thermal control\n",
 			tz->tz_enabled ? "Enable" : "Disable"));
-		acpi_thermal_check(tz);
+		acpi_thermal_check_fn(&tz->thermal_check_work);
 	}
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -932,6 +925,12 @@ static void acpi_thermal_unregister_thermal_zone(struct acpi_thermal *tz)
                                  Driver Interface
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
 
+static void acpi_queue_thermal_check(struct acpi_thermal *tz)
+{
+	if (!work_pending(&tz->thermal_check_work))
+		queue_work(acpi_thermal_pm_queue, &tz->thermal_check_work);
+}
+
 static void acpi_thermal_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
 {
 	struct acpi_thermal *tz = acpi_driver_data(device);
@@ -942,17 +941,17 @@ static void acpi_thermal_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
 
 	switch (event) {
 	case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_TEMPERATURE:
-		acpi_thermal_check(tz);
+		acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
 		break;
 	case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_THRESHOLDS:
 		acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS);
-		acpi_thermal_check(tz);
+		acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
 		acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
 						  dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
 		break;
 	case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_DEVICES:
 		acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES);
-		acpi_thermal_check(tz);
+		acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
 		acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
 						  dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
 		break;
@@ -1052,7 +1051,27 @@ static void acpi_thermal_check_fn(struct work_struct *work)
 {
 	struct acpi_thermal *tz = container_of(work, struct acpi_thermal,
 					       thermal_check_work);
-	acpi_thermal_check(tz);
+
+	if (!tz->tz_enabled)
+		return;
+	/*
+	 * In general, it is not sufficient to check the pending bit, because
+	 * subsequent instances of this function may be queued after one of them
+	 * has started running (e.g. if _TMP sleeps).  Avoid bailing out if just
+	 * one of them is running, though, because it may have done the actual
+	 * check some time ago, so allow at least one of them to block on the
+	 * mutex while another one is running the update.
+	 */
+	if (!refcount_dec_not_one(&tz->thermal_check_count))
+		return;
+
+	mutex_lock(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
+
+	thermal_zone_device_update(tz->thermal_zone, THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
+
+	refcount_inc(&tz->thermal_check_count);
+
+	mutex_unlock(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
 }
 
 static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device)
@@ -1084,6 +1103,8 @@ static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device)
 	if (result)
 		goto free_memory;
 
+	refcount_set(&tz->thermal_check_count, 3);
+	mutex_init(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
 	INIT_WORK(&tz->thermal_check_work, acpi_thermal_check_fn);
 
 	pr_info(PREFIX "%s [%s] (%ld C)\n", acpi_device_name(device),
@@ -1149,7 +1170,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_resume(struct device *dev)
 		tz->state.active |= tz->trips.active[i].flags.enabled;
 	}
 
-	queue_work(acpi_thermal_pm_queue, &tz->thermal_check_work);
+	acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
 
 	return AE_OK;
 }
-- 
2.30.0


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] ACPI: thermal: Do not call  acpi_thermal_check() directly
  2021-02-04 12:32 ` [PATCH] ACPI: thermal: Do not call acpi_thermal_check() directly Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
@ 2021-02-04 15:05   ` Greg KH
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2021-02-04 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior; +Cc: stable, rafael.j.wysocki, stephen.berman

On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 01:32:18PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Upstream commit 81b704d3e4674e09781d331df73d76675d5ad8cb
> 
> Applies to 5.4-stable tree                     
> Applies to 4.19-stable tree
> Applies to 4.14-stable tree

Now applied, thanks.

greg k-h

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-02-04 16:24 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-01-30 15:21 FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ACPI: thermal: Do not call acpi_thermal_check() directly" failed to apply to 5.4-stable tree gregkh
2021-02-04 12:32 ` [PATCH] ACPI: thermal: Do not call acpi_thermal_check() directly Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-02-04 15:05   ` Greg KH

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).