| 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: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 01:56:21 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] cpufreq: Do not hold driver module references for
additional policy CPUs
On 08/02/2013 01:34 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 02, 2013 12:51:24 AM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 08/02/2013 12:51 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 02, 2013 12:31:23 AM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>> On 08/02/2013 12:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:36:49 PM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>>>> Its the cpufreq_cpu_get() hidden away in cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(). With
>>>>>> that taken care of, everything should be OK. Then we can change the
>>>>>> synchronization part to avoid using refcounts.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I actually don't see why cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() needs to call
>>>>> cpufreq_cpu_get() at all, since the policy refcount is already 1 at the
>>>>> point it is called and the bumping up of the driver module refcount is
>>>>> pointless.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, yes, it seems so.
>>>>
>>>>> However, if I change that I also need to change the piece of code that
>>>>> calls the complementary cpufreq_cpu_put() and I kind of cannot find it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ... I guess that's because you are looking at the code with your patch
>>>> applied (and your patch removed that _put()) ;-)
>>>
>>> No, it's not that one. That one was complementary to the cpufreq_cpu_get()
>>> done by cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() before my patch. Since my patch changes
>>> cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() to call cpufreq_cpu_put() before returning and
>>> bump up the policy refcount with kobject_get(), the one in
>>> __cpufreq_remove_dev() is changed into kobject_put() (correctly, IMO).
>>>
>>> What gives?
>>>
>>
>> Actually, it _is_ the one I pointed above. This thing is tricky, here's why:
>>
>> cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() is called only if:
>> a. The CPU being onlined has per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu) == NULL
>> and
>> b. Its is present in some CPU's related_cpus mask.
>>
>> If condition (a) doesn't hold good, you get out right in the beginning of
>> __cpufreq_add_dev().
>>
>> So, cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() is called very rarely because, inside
>> __cpufreq_add_dev we do:
>>
>> 1093 write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>> 1094 for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus) {
>> 1095 per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = policy;
>> 1096 per_cpu(cpufreq_policy_cpu, j) = policy->cpu;
>> 1097 }
>> 1098 write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>>
>> So for all the CPUs in the above policy->cpus mask, we simply return
>> without further ado when they are onlined. In particular, we *dont* call
>> cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() for any of them.
>>
>> And their refcounts are incremented by the cpufreq_add_dev_interface()->
>> cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() function.
>>
>> So, ultimately, we increment the refcount for a given non-policy-owner CPU
>> only once. *Either* in cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() *or* in cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(),
>> but never both.
>>
>> So, in the teardown path, __cpufreq_remove_dev() needs only one place to
>> decrement it as shown below:
>>
>> 1303 } else {
>> 1304
>> 1305 if (!frozen) {
>> 1306 pr_debug("%s: removing link, cpu: %d\n", __func__, cpu);
>> 1307 cpufreq_cpu_put(data);
>> 1308 }
>>
>>
>> Pretty good maze, right? ;-(
>
> Oh dear. Right.
>
> I tgought I could change cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() to use kobject_get() to bump
> up the policy refcount in analogy with cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() and then it
> wouldn't need to call cpufreq_cpu_get() at all, but there is a bug in the
> error code path of cpufreq_add_dev_interface(), because if
> cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() fails for one of the CPUs sharing the policy,
> it will just fail to drop references grabbed in there. [Moreover, if it
> fails for the first one different from policy->cpu, kobject_put() will be
> called for that policy twice in a row if I'm not mistaken (first by
> cpufreq_add_dev_interface() and then by __cpufreq_add_dev()), but that's
> a different matter.]
>
> So I think that neither cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() nor
> cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() should bump up the policy refcount in any way.
>
Yeah, that greatly simplifies things, as seen in the patch below.
> Which entirely boils down to something like this:
>
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 31 +++++++------------------------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -818,14 +818,11 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(struc
> continue;
>
> pr_debug("Adding link for CPU: %u\n", j);
> - cpufreq_cpu_get(policy->cpu);
> cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(j);
> ret = sysfs_create_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, &policy->kobj,
> "cpufreq");
> - if (ret) {
> - cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> - return ret;
> - }
> + if (ret)
> + break;
> }
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -908,7 +905,8 @@ static int cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(unsign
> unsigned long flags;
>
> policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(sibling);
> - WARN_ON(!policy);
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!policy))
> + return -ENODATA;
>
> if (has_target)
> __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
> @@ -930,16 +928,10 @@ static int cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(unsign
> }
>
> /* Don't touch sysfs links during light-weight init */
> - if (frozen) {
> - /* Drop the extra refcount that we took above */
> - cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> - return 0;
> - }
> -
> - ret = sysfs_create_link(&dev->kobj, &policy->kobj, "cpufreq");
> - if (ret)
> - cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> + if (!frozen)
> + ret = sysfs_create_link(&dev->kobj, &policy->kobj, "cpufreq");
>
> + cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> return ret;
> }
> #endif
> @@ -1117,9 +1109,6 @@ err_out_unregister:
> }
> write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>
> - kobject_put(&policy->kobj);
> - wait_for_completion(&policy->kobj_unregister);
> -
> err_set_policy_cpu:
> per_cpu(cpufreq_policy_cpu, cpu) = -1;
> cpufreq_policy_free(policy);
> @@ -1298,12 +1287,6 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct d
> if (!frozen)
> cpufreq_policy_free(data);
> } else {
> -
> - if (!frozen) {
> - pr_debug("%s: removing link, cpu: %d\n", __func__, cpu);
> - cpufreq_cpu_put(data);
> - }
> -
> if (cpufreq_driver->target) {
> __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_START);
> __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
>
--
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