| 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: <bb6f1b48f09cfe1f0322b1718bf797f8cf5e108c.1454931189.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:09:26 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, juri.lelli@....com
Cc: linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
skannan@...eaurora.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mturquette@...libre.com, steve.muckle@...aro.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, morten.rasmussen@....com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, shilpa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH V3 12/13] cpufreq: ondemand: Traverse list of policy_dbs in update_sampling_rate()
Now that we maintain a list of all 'struct policy_dbs_info' for an
instance of 'struct dbs_data', we can traverse that instead of
traversing the loop for all online CPUs.
This also solves the circular dependency lockdep reported by Juri
(and verified by Shilpa) earlier:
======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
4.4.0+ #445 Not tainted
-------------------------------------------------------
trace.sh/1723 is trying to acquire lock:
(s_active#48){++++.+}, at: [<c01f78c8>] kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x4c/0x94
but task is already holding lock:
(od_dbs_cdata.mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c05824a0>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x34/0x5d4
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (od_dbs_cdata.mutex){+.+.+.}:
[<c075b040>] mutex_lock_nested+0x7c/0x434
[<c05824a0>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x34/0x5d4
[<c0017c10>] return_to_handler+0x0/0x18
-> #1 (&policy->rwsem){+++++.}:
[<c075ca8c>] down_read+0x58/0x94
[<c057c244>] show+0x30/0x60
[<c01f934c>] sysfs_kf_seq_show+0x90/0xfc
[<c01f7ad8>] kernfs_seq_show+0x34/0x38
[<c01a22ec>] seq_read+0x1e4/0x4e4
[<c01f8694>] kernfs_fop_read+0x120/0x1a0
[<c01794b4>] __vfs_read+0x3c/0xe0
[<c017a378>] vfs_read+0x98/0x104
[<c017a434>] SyS_read+0x50/0x90
[<c000fd40>] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x1c
-> #0 (s_active#48){++++.+}:
[<c008238c>] lock_acquire+0xd4/0x20c
[<c01f6ae4>] __kernfs_remove+0x288/0x328
[<c01f78c8>] kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x4c/0x94
[<c01fa024>] remove_files+0x44/0x88
[<c01fa5a4>] sysfs_remove_group+0x50/0xa4
[<c058285c>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3f0/0x5d4
[<c0017c10>] return_to_handler+0x0/0x18
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
s_active#48 --> &policy->rwsem --> od_dbs_cdata.mutex
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(od_dbs_cdata.mutex);
lock(&policy->rwsem);
lock(od_dbs_cdata.mutex);
lock(s_active#48);
*** DEADLOCK ***
5 locks held by trace.sh/1723:
#0: (sb_writers#6){.+.+.+}, at: [<c017beb8>] __sb_start_write+0xb4/0xc0
#1: (&of->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c01f8418>] kernfs_fop_write+0x6c/0x1c8
#2: (s_active#35){.+.+.+}, at: [<c01f8420>] kernfs_fop_write+0x74/0x1c8
#3: (cpu_hotplug.lock){++++++}, at: [<c0029e6c>] get_online_cpus+0x48/0xb8
#4: (od_dbs_cdata.mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c05824a0>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x34/0x5d4
stack backtrace:
CPU: 2 PID: 1723 Comm: trace.sh Not tainted 4.4.0+ #445
Hardware name: ARM-Versatile Express
[<c001883c>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0013f50>] (show_stack+0x20/0x24)
[<c0013f50>] (show_stack) from [<c044ad90>] (dump_stack+0x80/0xb4)
[<c044ad90>] (dump_stack) from [<c0128edc>] (print_circular_bug+0x29c/0x2f0)
[<c0128edc>] (print_circular_bug) from [<c0081708>] (__lock_acquire+0x163c/0x1d74)
[<c0081708>] (__lock_acquire) from [<c008238c>] (lock_acquire+0xd4/0x20c)
[<c008238c>] (lock_acquire) from [<c01f6ae4>] (__kernfs_remove+0x288/0x328)
[<c01f6ae4>] (__kernfs_remove) from [<c01f78c8>] (kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x4c/0x94)
[<c01f78c8>] (kernfs_remove_by_name_ns) from [<c01fa024>] (remove_files+0x44/0x88)
[<c01fa024>] (remove_files) from [<c01fa5a4>] (sysfs_remove_group+0x50/0xa4)
[<c01fa5a4>] (sysfs_remove_group) from [<c058285c>] (cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3f0/0x5d4)
[<c058285c>] (cpufreq_governor_dbs) from [<c0017c10>] (return_to_handler+0x0/0x18)
Reported-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 89 ++++++++++----------------------------
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
index 745290d7f6a2..f72087bc8302 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
@@ -224,83 +224,38 @@ static struct dbs_governor od_dbs_gov;
/**
* update_sampling_rate - update sampling rate effective immediately if needed.
* @new_rate: new sampling rate
- *
- * If new rate is smaller than the old, simply updating
- * dbs_tuners_int.sampling_rate might not be appropriate. For example, if the
- * original sampling_rate was 1 second and the requested new sampling rate is 10
- * ms because the user needs immediate reaction from ondemand governor, but not
- * sure if higher frequency will be required or not, then, the governor may
- * change the sampling rate too late; up to 1 second later. Thus, if we are
- * reducing the sampling rate, we need to make the new value effective
- * immediately.
*/
static void update_sampling_rate(struct dbs_data *dbs_data)
{
- struct cpumask cpumask;
+ struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs;
unsigned int new_rate = dbs_data->sampling_rate;
- int cpu;
/*
- * Lock governor so that governor start/stop can't execute in parallel.
+ * We are operating under dbs_data->mutex and so the list and its
+ * entries can't be freed concurrently.
*/
- mutex_lock(&dbs_data_mutex);
-
- cpumask_copy(&cpumask, cpu_online_mask);
-
- for_each_cpu(cpu, &cpumask) {
- struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
- struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info;
- struct cpu_dbs_info *cdbs;
- struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs;
-
- dbs_info = &per_cpu(od_cpu_dbs_info, cpu);
- cdbs = &dbs_info->cdbs;
- policy_dbs = cdbs->policy_dbs;
-
+ list_for_each_entry(policy_dbs, &dbs_data->policy_dbs_list, list) {
+ mutex_lock(&policy_dbs->timer_mutex);
/*
- * A valid policy_dbs means governor hasn't stopped or exited
- * yet.
+ * On 32-bit architectures this may race with the
+ * sample_delay_ns read in dbs_update_util_handler(), but that
+ * really doesn't matter. If the read returns a value that's
+ * too big, the sample will be skipped, but the next invocation
+ * of dbs_update_util_handler() (when the update has been
+ * completed) will take a sample. If the returned value is too
+ * small, the sample will be taken immediately, but that isn't a
+ * problem, as we want the new rate to take effect immediately
+ * anyway.
+ *
+ * If this runs in parallel with dbs_work_handler(), we may end
+ * up overwriting the sample_delay_ns value that it has just
+ * written, but the difference should not be too big and it will
+ * be corrected next time a sample is taken, so it shouldn't be
+ * significant.
*/
- if (!policy_dbs)
- continue;
-
- policy = policy_dbs->policy;
-
- /* clear all CPUs of this policy */
- cpumask_andnot(&cpumask, &cpumask, policy->cpus);
-
- /*
- * Update sampling rate for CPUs whose policy is governed by
- * dbs_data. In case of governor_per_policy, only a single
- * policy will be governed by dbs_data, otherwise there can be
- * multiple policies that are governed by the same dbs_data.
- */
- if (dbs_data == policy_dbs->dbs_data) {
- mutex_lock(&policy_dbs->timer_mutex);
- /*
- * On 32-bit architectures this may race with the
- * sample_delay_ns read in dbs_update_util_handler(),
- * but that really doesn't matter. If the read returns
- * a value that's too big, the sample will be skipped,
- * but the next invocation of dbs_update_util_handler()
- * (when the update has been completed) will take a
- * sample. If the returned value is too small, the
- * sample will be taken immediately, but that isn't a
- * problem, as we want the new rate to take effect
- * immediately anyway.
- *
- * If this runs in parallel with dbs_work_handler(), we
- * may end up overwriting the sample_delay_ns value that
- * it has just written, but the difference should not be
- * too big and it will be corrected next time a sample
- * is taken, so it shouldn't be significant.
- */
- gov_update_sample_delay(policy_dbs, new_rate);
- mutex_unlock(&policy_dbs->timer_mutex);
- }
+ gov_update_sample_delay(policy_dbs, new_rate);
+ mutex_unlock(&policy_dbs->timer_mutex);
}
-
- mutex_unlock(&dbs_data_mutex);
}
static bool invalid_up_threshold(struct dbs_data *dbs_data,
--
2.7.1.370.gb2aa7f8
Powered by blists - more mailing lists