linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/3] cpufreq: Define dbs_mutex purpose and cleanup its usage

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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090625194648.GA24657@Krystal>
Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:46:48 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] cpufreq: Define dbs_mutex purpose and cleanup its
	usage

* venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com (venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com) wrote:
> Commit b14893a62c73af0eca414cfed505b8c09efc613c although it was very
> much needed to cleanup ondemand timer cleanly, openup a can of worms
> related to locking dependencies in cpufreq.
> 
> Patch here defines the need for dbs_mutex and cleans up its usage in
> ondemand governor. This also resolves the lockdep warnings reported here
> 
> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.1/01925.html
> 
> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c |   37 +++++++++++++++--------------------
>  1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> index 1911d17..b2d2106 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> @@ -78,15 +78,14 @@ 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.
> + * dbs_mutex protects data in dbs_tuners_ins from concurrent changes on
> + * different CPUs. It also serializes dbs_enable usage in CPUFREQ_GOV_START
> + * and CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP.
> + *
> + * dbs_mutex should be always held after lock_policy_rwsem whenever needed.
> + * 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);
>  
> @@ -240,12 +239,10 @@ static ssize_t store_sampling_rate(struct cpufreq_policy *unused,
>  	unsigned int input;
>  	int ret;
>  	ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &input);
> +	if (ret != 1)
> +		return -EINVAL;
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
> -	if (ret != 1) {
> -		mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -	}
>  	dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate = max(input, min_sampling_rate);
>  	mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>  
> @@ -258,14 +255,12 @@ static ssize_t store_up_threshold(struct cpufreq_policy *unused,
>  	unsigned int input;
>  	int ret;
>  	ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &input);
> -
> -	mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>  	if (ret != 1 || input > MAX_FREQUENCY_UP_THRESHOLD ||
>  			input < MIN_FREQUENCY_UP_THRESHOLD) {
> -		mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>  	dbs_tuners_ins.up_threshold = input;
>  	mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>  
> @@ -324,8 +319,8 @@ static ssize_t store_powersave_bias(struct cpufreq_policy *unused,
>  
>  	mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>  	dbs_tuners_ins.powersave_bias = input;
> -	ondemand_powersave_bias_init();
>  	mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> +	ondemand_powersave_bias_init();
>  
>  	return count;
>  }
> @@ -598,14 +593,16 @@ static int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  				max(min_sampling_rate,
>  				    latency * LATENCY_MULTIPLIER);
>  		}
> +		mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> +
>  		dbs_timer_init(this_dbs_info);
>  
> -		mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>  		break;
>  
>  	case CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP:
> -		mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>  		dbs_timer_exit(this_dbs_info);

Hrm, so.. how do we protect against concurrent :

CPUFREQ_GOV_START/CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP now ?

Mathieu

> +
> +		mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>  		sysfs_remove_group(&policy->kobj, &dbs_attr_group);
>  		dbs_enable--;
>  		mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> @@ -613,14 +610,12 @@ static int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  		break;
>  
>  	case CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS:
> -		mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>  		if (policy->max < this_dbs_info->cur_policy->cur)
>  			__cpufreq_driver_target(this_dbs_info->cur_policy,
>  				policy->max, CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
>  		else if (policy->min > this_dbs_info->cur_policy->cur)
>  			__cpufreq_driver_target(this_dbs_info->cur_policy,
>  				policy->min, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
> -		mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>  		break;
>  	}
>  	return 0;
> -- 
> 1.6.0.6
> 
> -- 
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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/