linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Add governor operation ongoing flag

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: <CAFgnuDes_F7Q5CHbXKC=ndrn9Gr3PJfGj0QvDXA-FuGcq41CHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:36:20 +0800
From:	Xiaoguang Chen <chenxg.marvell@...il.com>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	Xiaoguang Chen <chenxg@...vell.com>,
	"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Add governor operation ongoing flag

2013/8/14 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>:
> On 13 August 2013 12:39, Xiaoguang Chen <chenxg@...vell.com> wrote:
>> __cpufreq_governor operation needs to be executed one by one.
>> If one operation is ongoing, the other operation can't be executed.
>> If the order is not guaranteed, there may be unexpected behavior.
>
> What order??
I mean one stop operation is ongoing, one other process tries to call
a start operation.

>
>>  For example, governor is in enable state, and one process
>> tries to stop the goveror, but it is scheduled out before policy->
>> governor->governor() is executed, but the governor enable flag is
>> set to false already. Then one other process tries to start governor,
>> It finds enable flag is false, and it can process down to do governor
>> start operation, So the governor is started twice.
>
> That's not possible. A process will not and should not call START
> before calling STOP. And so the order of calling these routines must
> be forced.
>
> Hence, we may not need your patch.

Please see below code in __cpufreq_governor function

mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
if ((!policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP)) ||
                            //////////// <1> Here one process A tries
to stop governor, it finds governor is enabled, so it will pass down.
   (policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START))) {
                          /////////////<3> Process B tries to start
governor, it finds enable flag is false, so it can also pass down.
mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
return -EBUSY;
}

if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP)
policy->governor_enabled = false;
                                                  //////////// < 2>
Here process A set flag to false and then process A is scheduled out
for some reasons(like interrupt or time slice end)
else if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START)
policy->governor_enabled = true;

mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);

ret = policy->governor->governor(policy, event);
                                           ///////////////<4>  Process
B executes the governor start operation, process A is not scheduled
back yet. as policy->governor->governor is not protected by


                the cpufreq_governor_lock, So this sequence can happen
really.









Thanks
Xiaoguang
--
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/