[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <11902650.Ha3YdDNSQe@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 02:57:41 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, robert.schoene@...dresden.de,
sboyd@...eaurora.org, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] cpufreq, dbs_data->usage count must be atomic
On Wednesday, November 05, 2014 09:53:57 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> The usage_count value can be modified from several cpus concurrently if
> !CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY. This leads to a variety of panics in
> which the usage_count is negative or exceeds the number of cpus in the
> system. It must be switched to atomic_t and protected with a mutex to make sure
> that future read/writes obtain the correct data.
Why do you need to use a new mutex and atomic_t at the same time? Most likely
one of them is redundant.
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h | 3 ++-
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> index 1b44496..32ad9db 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> @@ -265,7 +265,9 @@ int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> if (have_governor_per_policy()) {
> WARN_ON(dbs_data);
> } else if (dbs_data) {
> - dbs_data->usage_count++;
> + mutex_lock(&dbs_data->usage_count_mutex);
> + atomic_inc(&dbs_data->usage_count);
> + mutex_unlock(&dbs_data->usage_count_mutex);
> policy->governor_data = dbs_data;
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -277,7 +279,10 @@ int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> }
>
> dbs_data->cdata = cdata;
> - dbs_data->usage_count = 1;
> + mutex_init(&dbs_data->usage_count_mutex);
> + mutex_lock(&dbs_data->usage_count_mutex);
> + atomic_set(&dbs_data->usage_count, 1);
> + mutex_unlock(&dbs_data->usage_count_mutex);
The locking here isn't necessary (if it was, someone could be using an
uninitialized mutex).
> rc = cdata->init(dbs_data);
> if (rc) {
> pr_err("%s: POLICY_INIT: init() failed\n", __func__);
> @@ -322,7 +327,8 @@ int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>
> return 0;
> case CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT:
> - if (!--dbs_data->usage_count) {
> + mutex_lock(&dbs_data->usage_count_mutex);
> + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&dbs_data->usage_count)) {
> sysfs_remove_group(get_governor_parent_kobj(policy),
> get_sysfs_attr(dbs_data));
>
> @@ -338,9 +344,11 @@ int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> }
>
> cdata->exit(dbs_data);
> + mutex_unlock(&dbs_data->usage_count_mutex);
> kfree(dbs_data);
> cdata->gdbs_data = NULL;
> - }
> + } else
> + mutex_unlock(&dbs_data->usage_count_mutex);
>
> policy->governor_data = NULL;
> return 0;
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
> index cc401d1..53ca449 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
> @@ -219,7 +219,8 @@ struct common_dbs_data {
> struct dbs_data {
> struct common_dbs_data *cdata;
> unsigned int min_sampling_rate;
> - int usage_count;
> + struct mutex usage_count_mutex;
> + atomic_t usage_count;
> void *tuners;
>
> /* dbs_mutex protects dbs_enable in governor start/stop */
>
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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