| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:03:47 -0700
From: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
CC: "kernel@...ble.org" <kernel@...ble.org>,
"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, "rjw@...k.pl" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"hidave.darkstar@...il.com" <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
"penberg@...helsinki.fi" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
"kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
"davej@...hat.com" <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] CPUFREQ: Remove unneeded dbs_mutexes from ondemand
and conservative governors
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mathieu Desnoyers [mailto:mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca]
>Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:26 AM
>To: Thomas Renninger
>Cc: kernel@...ble.org; cpufreq@...r.kernel.org;
>linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; mingo@...e.hu; rjw@...k.pl;
>hidave.darkstar@...il.com; penberg@...helsinki.fi;
>kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org; davej@...hat.com; Pallipadi, Venkatesh
>Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] CPUFREQ: Remove unneeded dbs_mutexes
>from ondemand and conservative governors
>
>* Thomas Renninger (trenn@...e.de) wrote:
>> Comment from Venkatesh:
>> ...
>> This mutex is just serializing the changes to those
>variables. I could't
>> think of any functionality issues of not having the lock as such.
>>
>> -> rip it out.
>>
>> CC: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 61
>+++-----------------------------
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 48
>+++----------------------
>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 99 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
>b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
>> index 7a74d17..6303379 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
>> @@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
>> #include <linux/cpu.h>
>> #include <linux/jiffies.h>
>> #include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
>> -#include <linux/mutex.h>
>> #include <linux/hrtimer.h>
>> #include <linux/tick.h>
>> #include <linux/ktime.h>
>> @@ -84,19 +83,6 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct
>cpu_dbs_info_s, cpu_dbs_info);
>>
>> static unsigned int dbs_enable; /* number of CPUs using
>this policy */
>>
>> -/*
>> - * DEADLOCK ALERT! There is a ordering requirement between
>cpu_hotplug
>> - * lock and dbs_mutex. cpu_hotplug lock should always be held before
>> - * dbs_mutex. If any function that can potentially take
>cpu_hotplug lock
>> - * (like __cpufreq_driver_target()) is being called with
>dbs_mutex taken, then
>> - * cpu_hotplug lock should be taken before that. Note that
>cpu_hotplug lock
>> - * is recursive for the same process. -Venki
>> - * DEADLOCK ALERT! (2) : do_dbs_timer() must not take the
>dbs_mutex, because it
>> - * would deadlock with cancel_delayed_work_sync(), which is
>needed for proper
>> - * raceless workqueue teardown.
>> - */
>> -static DEFINE_MUTEX(dbs_mutex);
>> -
>> static struct workqueue_struct *kconservative_wq;
>>
>> static struct dbs_tuners {
>> @@ -236,10 +222,7 @@ static ssize_t
>store_sampling_down_factor(struct cpufreq_policy *unused,
>> if (ret != 1 || input > MAX_SAMPLING_DOWN_FACTOR || input < 1)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> - mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>> dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_down_factor = input;
>> - mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>> -
>> return count;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -253,10 +236,7 @@ static ssize_t
>store_sampling_rate(struct cpufreq_policy *unused,
>> if (ret != 1)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> - mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>> dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate = max(input,
>minimum_sampling_rate());
>> - mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>> -
>> return count;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -267,16 +247,11 @@ static ssize_t
>store_up_threshold(struct cpufreq_policy *unused,
>> int ret;
>> ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &input);
>>
>> - mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>> if (ret != 1 || input > 100 ||
>> - input <= dbs_tuners_ins.down_threshold) {
>> - mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>> + input <= dbs_tuners_ins.down_threshold)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> - }
>>
>> dbs_tuners_ins.up_threshold = input;
>> - mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>
>Here, for instance, there might be a problem if down_threshold is
>changed concurrently with a store_up_threshold() call. See
>that there is
>a test before the modification, and we need the mutex there
>for it to be
>consistent.
>
>> -
>> return count;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -287,17 +262,12 @@ static ssize_t
>store_down_threshold(struct cpufreq_policy *unused,
>> int ret;
>> ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &input);
>>
>> - mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>> /* cannot be lower than 11 otherwise freq will not fall */
>> if (ret != 1 || input < 11 || input > 100 ||
>> - input >= dbs_tuners_ins.up_threshold) {
>> - mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>> + input >= dbs_tuners_ins.up_threshold)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> - }
>>
>> dbs_tuners_ins.down_threshold = input;
>> - mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>> -
>> return count;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -316,11 +286,9 @@ static ssize_t
>store_ignore_nice_load(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> if (input > 1)
>> input = 1;
>>
>> - mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>> - if (input == dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice) { /* nothing to do */
>> - mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>> + if (input == dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice) /* nothing to do */
>> return count;
>> - }
>> +
>> dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice = input;
>>
>> /* we need to re-evaluate prev_cpu_idle */
>> @@ -332,8 +300,6 @@ static ssize_t
>store_ignore_nice_load(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> if (dbs_tuners_ins.ignore_nice)
>> dbs_info->prev_cpu_nice =
>kstat_cpu(j).cpustat.nice;
>> }
>> - mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>> -
>> return count;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -352,10 +318,7 @@ static ssize_t store_freq_step(struct
>cpufreq_policy *policy,
>>
>> /* no need to test here if freq_step is zero as the
>user might actually
>> * want this, they would be crazy though :) */
>> - mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>> dbs_tuners_ins.freq_step = input;
>> - mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>> -
>> return count;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -566,13 +529,9 @@ static int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct
>cpufreq_policy *policy,
>
>Hrm, this is where we want the mutexes removed, but I fear this is
>creating a race between sysfs_create_group (sysfs file creation) and
>policy initialization...
>
>I'm not convinced this mutex is not needed.
>
I am with Mathieu on this one. We can reduce the use of mutex here. But, it will still be needed. As I mentioned earlier, we need it to protect dbs_tuners getting changed from different CPUs at the same time. We also need it for dbs_enable change in start and stop from different CPUs. Otherwise dbs_enable increment/decrement and test will have races. I was playing with some changes for this. I should have a cleaner patchset later today...
Thanks,
Venki--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists