On 08/05/2014 06:06 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On 08/05/2014 03:53 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 5 August 2014 16:17, Prarit Bhargava <pra...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Nope, not a stupid question. After reproducing (finally!) yesterday I've
>>> been
>>> wondering the same thing.
>>
>> Good to know that :)
>>
>>> I've been looking into *exactly* this. On any platform where
>>> cpu_weight(affected_cpus) == 1 for a particular cpu this lockdep trace
>>> should
>>> happen.
>>
>>> That's what I'm wondering too. I'm going to instrument the code to find out
>>> this morning. I'm wondering if this comes down to a lockdep class issue
>>> (perhaps lockdep puts globally defined locks like cpufreq_global_kobject in
>>> a
>>> different class?).
>>
>> Maybe, I tried this Hack to make this somewhat similar to the other case
>> on my platform with just two CPUs:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index 6f02485..6b4abac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(cpufreq_governor_mutex);
>>
>> bool have_governor_per_policy(void)
>> {
>> - return !!(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY);
>> + return !(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(have_governor_per_policy);
>>
>>
>> This should result in something similar to setting that per-policy-governor
>> flag (Actually I could have done that too :)), and I couldn't see that crash
>> :(
>>
>> That needs more investigation now, probably we can get some champ of
>> sysfs stuff like Tejun/Greg into discussion now..
>
> Stephen and I looked into this. This is not a sysfs framework difference. The
> reason we don't have this issue when we use global tunables is because we add
> the attribute group to the cpufreq_global_kobject and that kobject doesn't
> have
> a kobj_type ops similar to the per policy kobject. So, read/write to those
> attributes do NOT go through the generic show/store ops that wrap every other
> cpufreq framework attribute read/writes.
>
> So, none of those read/write do any kind of locking. They don't race with
> POLICY_EXIT (because we remove the sysfs group first thing in POLICY_EXIT) but
> might still race with START/STOPs (not sure, haven't looked closely yet).
>
> For example, writing to sampling_rate of ondemand governor might cause a race
> in
> update_sampling_rate(). It could race and happen between a STOP and
> POLICY_EXIT
> (triggered by hotplug, gov change, etc).
>
> So, this might be a completely separate bug that needs fixing when we don't
> use
> per policy govs.
Yeah, the show_one & store_one macros don't have any locking in them :/.
Okay ... at least that isn't the issue. I spent 1/2 the day trying to figure
out why
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index fa11a7d..6297c76 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -745,12 +745,14 @@ static struct attribute *default_attrs[] = {
#define to_policy(k) container_of(k, struct cpufreq_policy, kobj)
#define to_attr(a) container_of(a, struct freq_attr, attr)
+/* PRARIT - in the CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY, this is used */
static ssize_t show(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr, char *buf)
{
struct cpufreq_policy *policy = to_policy(kobj);
struct freq_attr *fattr = to_attr(attr);
ssize_t ret;
+ printk("%s: kobject %p\n", __FUNCTION__, kobj);
if (!down_read_trylock(&cpufreq_rwsem))
return -EINVAL;
wasn't printing the kobject line when acpi-cpufreq didn't have the
CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY flag. And I agree ... it is a bug.
P.
--
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/
