On 29 October 2014 22:24, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 04:45:47 PM Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> There's a substantial window of opportunity from the time the policy objects >> are created until they are initialized, causing this: >> >> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 64 at include/linux/kref.h:47 kobject_get+0x64/0x70() >> Modules linked in: >> CPU: 1 PID: 64 Comm: irq/77-tegra-ac Not tainted >> 3.18.0-rc1-next-20141027ccu-00049-g21a0041 #248 >> [<c0016fac>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c001272c>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) >> [<c001272c>] (show_stack) from [<c0601920>] (dump_stack+0x98/0xd8) >> [<c0601920>] (dump_stack) from [<c00288d8>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x70/0x8c) >> [<c00288d8>] (warn_slowpath_common) from [<c0028990>] >> (warn_slowpath_null+0x1c/0x24) >> [<c0028990>] (warn_slowpath_null) from [<c02227bc>] (kobject_get+0x64/0x70) >> [<c02227bc>] (kobject_get) from [<c03e5238>] (cpufreq_cpu_get+0x88/0xc8) >> [<c03e5238>] (cpufreq_cpu_get) from [<c03e52ec>] (cpufreq_get+0xc/0x64) >> [<c03e52ec>] (cpufreq_get) from [<c0287818>] (actmon_thread_isr+0x140/0x1a4) >> [<c0287818>] (actmon_thread_isr) from [<c0068a68>] (irq_thread_fn+0x1c/0x40) >> [<c0068a68>] (irq_thread_fn) from [<c0068d84>] (irq_thread+0x134/0x174) >> [<c0068d84>] (irq_thread) from [<c0040284>] (kthread+0xdc/0xf4) >> [<c0040284>] (kthread) from [<c000f4b8>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x3c) >> >> This commit checks that initialization has finished before trying to do >> anything with the policy. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.viz...@collabora.com> >> --- >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 ++++++- >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> index 644b54e..7b84d1a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> @@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(char[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN], >> cpufreq_cpu_governor); >> /* Flag to suspend/resume CPUFreq governors */ >> static bool cpufreq_suspended; >> >> +/* Flag that tells whether initialization is completed */ >> +static atomic_t cpufreq_initialized = ATOMIC_INIT(0); >> + >> static inline bool has_target(void) >> { >> return cpufreq_driver->target_index || cpufreq_driver->target; >> @@ -211,7 +214,7 @@ struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_cpu_get(unsigned int cpu) >> /* get the cpufreq driver */ >> read_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags); >> >> - if (cpufreq_driver) { >> + if (atomic_read(&cpufreq_initialized)) { > > The atomics don't help you here, because they don't make race conditions go > away. Memory barriers would be needed for that, but then there should be an > alternative way to address the problem at hand.
Yeah, now I'm not sure that atomic is even needed here, as cpufreq_cpu_get is already returning NULL if the cpufreq_driver hasn't been registered yet, so the callers should be already retrying. >> /* get the CPU */ >> policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu); >> if (policy) >> @@ -1289,6 +1292,8 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, >> struct subsys_interface *sif) >> kobject_uevent(&policy->kobj, KOBJ_ADD); >> up_read(&cpufreq_rwsem); >> >> + atomic_set(&cpufreq_initialized, 1); >> + > > __cpufreq_add_dev() can be run for many times. Why is the first one only > relevant? I see now. What about having the flag in struct cpufreq_policy instead? TBH, I find the initialization sequence in cpufreq quite daunting, so any guidance on this will be appreciated. Regards, Tomeu >> pr_debug("initialization complete\n"); >> >> return 0; >> > > -- > I speak only for myself. > Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- 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/