On Tuesday, September 03, 2013 06:50:05 PM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 09/01/2013 10:56 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > We can't take a big lock around __cpufreq_governor() as this causes
> > recursive
> > locking for some cases. But calls to this routine must be serialized for
> > every
> > policy.
> >
> > Lets introduce another variable which would guarantee serialization here.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 ++++++-
> > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index f320a20..4d5723db 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -1692,13 +1692,15 @@ static int __cpufreq_governor(struct cpufreq_policy
> > *policy,
> > policy->cpu, event);
> >
> > mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
> > - if ((policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START)) ||
> > + if (policy->governor_busy ||
> > + (policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START)) ||
> > (!policy->governor_enabled && ((event == CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS) ||
> > (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP)))) {
> > mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
> > return -EBUSY;
> > }
> >
> > + policy->governor_busy = true;
> > if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP)
> > policy->governor_enabled = false;
> > else if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START)
> > @@ -1727,6 +1729,9 @@ static int __cpufreq_governor(struct cpufreq_policy
> > *policy,
> > ((event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT) && !ret))
> > module_put(policy->governor->owner);
> >
> > + mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
> > + policy->governor_busy = false;
> > + mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
>
> This doesn't solve the problem completely: it prevents the store_*() task
> from continuing *only* when it concurrently executes the __cpufreq_governor()
> function along with the CPU offline task. But if the two calls don't overlap,
> we will still have the possibility where the store_*() task tries to acquire
> the timer mutex after the CPU offline task has just finished destroying it.
>
> So, IMHO, the right fix is to synchronize with CPU hotplug. That way, the
> store_*() thread will wait until the entire CPU offline operation is
> completed.
> After that, if it continues, it will get -EBUSY, due to patch [1], since
> policy->governor_enabled will be set to false.
>
> [1]. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2852463/
>
> So here is the (completely untested) fix that I propose, as a replacement to
> this patch [2/2]:
>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 5c75e31..71c4fb2 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -440,17 +440,24 @@ static ssize_t store_##file_name
> \
> unsigned int ret; \
> struct cpufreq_policy new_policy; \
> \
> + get_online_cpus(); \
> ret = cpufreq_get_policy(&new_policy, policy->cpu); \
> - if (ret) \
> - return -EINVAL; \
> + if (ret) { \
> + ret = -EINVAL; \
> + goto out; \
> + } \
> \
> ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &new_policy.object); \
> - if (ret != 1) \
> - return -EINVAL; \
> + if (ret != 1) { \
> + ret = -EINVAL; \
> + goto out; \
> + } \
> \
> ret = __cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy); \
> policy->user_policy.object = policy->object; \
> \
> +out: \
> + put_online_cpus(); \
> return ret ? ret : count; \
> }
>
> @@ -494,17 +501,22 @@ static ssize_t store_scaling_governor(struct
> cpufreq_policy *policy,
> char str_governor[16];
> struct cpufreq_policy new_policy;
>
> + get_online_cpus();
> ret = cpufreq_get_policy(&new_policy, policy->cpu);
> if (ret)
> - return ret;
> + goto out;
>
> ret = sscanf(buf, "%15s", str_governor);
> - if (ret != 1)
> - return -EINVAL;
> + if (ret != 1) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
>
> if (cpufreq_parse_governor(str_governor, &new_policy.policy,
> - &new_policy.governor))
> - return -EINVAL;
> + &new_policy.governor)) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
>
> /*
> * Do not use cpufreq_set_policy here or the user_policy.max
> @@ -515,6 +527,9 @@ static ssize_t store_scaling_governor(struct
> cpufreq_policy *policy,
> policy->user_policy.policy = policy->policy;
> policy->user_policy.governor = policy->governor;
>
> +out:
> + put_online_cpus();
> +
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> else
Well, I'm not sure when Viresh is going to be back.
Srivatsa, can you please resend this patch with a proper changelog?
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
