linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq: governor: Create separate sysfs-ops

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: <CAJZ5v0jEKwgXT0nyUR9ksSw29KMbBK6xjAVxkWFCMgTHw8aHVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Feb 2016 02:52:06 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq: governor: Create separate sysfs-ops

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> On 02/02/2016 05:07 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 02/02/2016 11:40 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>> [cut]
>>
>>>>
>>>> I also don't like this patch because it forces governors to either
>>>> implement
>>>> their own macros and management of their attributes or force them to use
>>>> the
>>>> governor structs that come with cpufreq_governor.h. cpufreq_governor.h
>>>> IMHO
>>>> is very ondemand and conservative governor specific and is very
>>>> irrelevant
>>>> for sched-dvfs or any other governors (hint hint).
>>>>
>>>> The only time this ABBA locking is an issue is when governor are
>>>> changing
>>>> and trying to add/remove attributes. That can easily be checked in
>>>> store_governor and dealt with without holding the policy rwsem if the
>>>> governors can provide their per sys and per policy attribute arrays as
>>>> part
>>>> of registering themselves.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry that I just keep talking about the idea and not sending out
>>>> the
>>>> patches.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you have a point, though.
>>>
>>> The deadlock really is specific to the governors using the code in
>>> cpufreq_governor.c.
>>
>>
>> That said no other governors in the tree use any sysfs attributes for
>> tunables AFAICS and the out-of-the tree ones are out of interest here.
>
>
> But if we are expecting sched dvfs to come in, why make it worse for it. It
> would be completely pointless to try and shoehorn sched dvfs to use
> cpufreq_governor.c

Well, do you honestly think that using the existing stuff in it would
be a good idea?

If not, then why it matters at all?

>> Also the deadlock happens if one of the tunable attributes is accessed
>> while we're trying to remove it which very well may happen on read
>> access too.
>
> Isn't this THE deadlock we are talking about? The removal of the attributes
> only happen when governors are changes and we send a POLICY_EXIT and or all
> the cores are hotplugged out.

It generally happens when the "old" governor is going away, whatever the reason.

> And my suggestion would work just as well there.
>
> Why are you prefixing your sentence with "Also"? Is there some other case
> I'm not considering?

Say someone is reading sampling_rate for a policy with 1 CPU in it and
someone else is taking the CPU offline.  The governor EXIT code path
(that will trigger as a result) will try to remove the sampling_rate
attribute and (if it does that under policy->rwsem) it'll wait for the
read access to finish.  Where exactly would you put the deadlock
prevention in this case?

Thanks,
Rafael