| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150730090013.GE31351@linux>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:30:13 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: Avoid attempts to create duplicate symbolic
links
I am not going to fight hard to prove a point as the code is in good
working conditions, but wanted to finish the discussion ..
On 29-07-15, 22:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> > On 29-07-15, 15:57, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> In practice, this means a cpufreq driver registration done in parallel
> >> with CPU hotplug.
> >
> > Not necessarily. Also consider the case where cpufreq driver is already working
> > for a set of CPUs. And a new set of CPUs (that will share the policy) are
> > getting physically added to the system.
>
> That's what I mean by "hotplug" (as opposed to online/offline).
You were talking about driver registration done in parallel with
hotplug. But I was pointing at something else.
Suppose a system that has:
- 8 CPUs, 0-3 and 4-7 share policy
- 4-7 physically hotplugged out
- cpufreq driver registered and so policy0 active for cpu 0-3.
- We hotplug 4-7.
So, this is a bit different compared to the case where Russell mentioned
the Racy thing. Not sure if this case also has similary racy situations
though.
> Problem is, we can't do that for all of them.
Right.
> If the CPU is ofline
> while being registered (the common case for hot-add) and it doesn't
> have a policy already, we can't link it to an existing policy anyway,
> so that operation has to be carried out later. That is, we need to
> create links for those CPUs after the policy has been created in any
> case.
Right, but at least the cpufreq-core is already requested on behalf of
such CPUs. We aren't creating links based on the assumption that a
add_dev() will be called for these devices.
> Moreover, the only case when we need to create links for online CPUs
offline CPUs as well..
> is the registration of a cpufreq driver, because only then we can see
> online CPUs that should be linked to a policy, but aren't. It takes
> less code to treat them in the same way as the offline CPUs at that
> point (and create the links for them right after the policy has been
> created) than to defer it to until sif->add() is called for each of
> them, because we know that sif->add() is practically guaraneed to
> succeeed for them (this is the code path in which we call
> cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() and the governor "stop" only fails if it
> hasn't been started for that policy).
Choose whatever you feel is right. I have already written below code, so
just pasting it here. Its not to say, that this code looks better :P
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 24e4ba568e77..87faabce777d 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -31,6 +31,12 @@
#include <linux/tick.h>
#include <trace/events/power.h>
+/*
+ * CPUs that were offline when a request to allocate policy was issued, symlinks
+ * for them should be created once the policy is available for them.
+ */
+cpumask_t real_cpus_pending;
+
static LIST_HEAD(cpufreq_policy_list);
static inline bool policy_is_inactive(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
@@ -941,62 +947,46 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_sysfs_remove_file);
static int add_cpu_dev_symlink(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, int cpu)
{
struct device *cpu_dev;
-
- pr_debug("%s: Adding symlink for CPU: %u\n", __func__, cpu);
-
- if (!policy)
- return 0;
+ int ret;
cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
if (WARN_ON(!cpu_dev))
return 0;
- return sysfs_create_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, &policy->kobj, "cpufreq");
-}
-
-static void remove_cpu_dev_symlink(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, int cpu)
-{
- struct device *cpu_dev;
-
- pr_debug("%s: Removing symlink for CPU: %u\n", __func__, cpu);
+ dev_dbg(cpu_dev, "%s: Adding symlink for CPU: %u\n", __func__, cpu);
- cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
- if (WARN_ON(!cpu_dev))
- return;
+ ret = sysfs_create_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, &policy->kobj, "cpufreq");
+ if (ret)
+ dev_err(cpu_dev, "%s: Failed to create link (%d)\n", __func__,
+ ret);
+ else
+ cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, policy->real_cpus);
- sysfs_remove_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
+ return ret;
}
-/* Add/remove symlinks for all related CPUs */
-static int cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
+/*
+ * Create symlinks for CPUs which are already added via subsys callbacks (and
+ * were offline then), before the policy was created.
+ */
+static int cpufreq_add_pending_symlinks(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
{
- unsigned int j;
- int ret = 0;
+ struct cpumask mask;
+ int cpu, ret;
+
+ cpumask_and(&mask, policy->related_cpus, &real_cpus_pending);
- /* Some related CPUs might not be present (physically hotplugged) */
- for_each_cpu(j, policy->real_cpus) {
- if (j == policy->kobj_cpu)
- continue;
+ if (cpumask_empty(&mask))
+ return 0;
- ret = add_cpu_dev_symlink(policy, j);
+ for_each_cpu(cpu, &mask) {
+ ret = add_cpu_dev_symlink(policy, cpu);
if (ret)
- break;
+ return ret;
+ cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &real_cpus_pending);
}
- return ret;
-}
-
-static void cpufreq_remove_dev_symlink(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
-{
- unsigned int j;
-
- /* Some related CPUs might not be present (physically hotplugged) */
- for_each_cpu(j, policy->real_cpus) {
- if (j == policy->kobj_cpu)
- continue;
-
- remove_cpu_dev_symlink(policy, j);
- }
+ return 0;
}
static int cpufreq_add_dev_interface(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
@@ -1028,7 +1018,7 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev_interface(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
return ret;
}
- return cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(policy);
+ return cpufreq_add_pending_symlinks(policy);
}
static int cpufreq_init_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
@@ -1155,7 +1145,6 @@ static void cpufreq_policy_put_kobj(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, bool notify)
CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY, policy);
down_write(&policy->rwsem);
- cpufreq_remove_dev_symlink(policy);
kobj = &policy->kobj;
cmp = &policy->kobj_unregister;
up_write(&policy->rwsem);
@@ -1235,10 +1224,9 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
down_write(&policy->rwsem);
if (new_policy) {
+ cpumask_copy(policy->real_cpus, cpumask_of(cpu));
/* related_cpus should at least include policy->cpus. */
cpumask_or(policy->related_cpus, policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
- /* Remember CPUs present at the policy creation time. */
- cpumask_and(policy->real_cpus, policy->cpus, cpu_present_mask);
}
/*
@@ -1363,23 +1351,17 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
static int cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
{
unsigned cpu = dev->id;
- int ret;
+ struct cpufreq_policy *policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu);
+ int ret = 0;
dev_dbg(dev, "%s: adding CPU%u\n", __func__, cpu);
- if (cpu_online(cpu)) {
+ if (policy)
+ ret = add_cpu_dev_symlink(policy, cpu);
+ else if (cpu_online(cpu))
ret = cpufreq_online(cpu);
- } else {
- /*
- * A hotplug notifier will follow and we will handle it as CPU
- * online then. For now, just create the sysfs link, unless
- * there is no policy or the link is already present.
- */
- struct cpufreq_policy *policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu);
-
- ret = policy && !cpumask_test_and_set_cpu(cpu, policy->real_cpus)
- ? add_cpu_dev_symlink(policy, cpu) : 0;
- }
+ else
+ cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &real_cpus_pending);
return ret;
}
@@ -1469,8 +1451,10 @@ static int cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
unsigned int cpu = dev->id;
struct cpufreq_policy *policy = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu);
- if (!policy)
+ if (!policy) {
+ cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &real_cpus_pending);
return 0;
+ }
if (cpu_online(cpu)) {
cpufreq_offline_prepare(cpu);
@@ -1485,7 +1469,8 @@ static int cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
}
if (cpu != policy->kobj_cpu) {
- remove_cpu_dev_symlink(policy, cpu);
+ dev_dbg(dev, "%s: Removing symlink\n", __func__);
+ sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
} else {
/*
* The CPU owning the policy object is going away. Move it to
@@ -2550,6 +2535,9 @@ int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver)
if (cpufreq_boost_supported())
cpufreq_sysfs_remove_file(&boost.attr);
+ if (WARN_ON(!cpumask_empty(&real_cpus_pending)))
+ cpumask_clear(&real_cpus_pending);
+
unregister_hotcpu_notifier(&cpufreq_cpu_notifier);
write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
--
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