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]
Date:   Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:48:24 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, cristian.marussi@....com,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] cpufreq: stats: Defer stats update to cpufreq_stats_record_transition()

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 8:45 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> In order to prepare for lock-less stats update, add support to defer any
> updates to it until cpufreq_stats_record_transition() is called.

This is a bit devoid of details.

I guess you mean reset in particular, but that's not clear from the above.

Also, it would be useful to describe the design somewhat.

> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> index 94d959a8e954..3e7eee29ee86 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> @@ -22,17 +22,22 @@ struct cpufreq_stats {
>         spinlock_t lock;
>         unsigned int *freq_table;
>         unsigned int *trans_table;
> +
> +       /* Deferred reset */
> +       unsigned int reset_pending;
> +       unsigned long long reset_time;
>  };
>
> -static void cpufreq_stats_update(struct cpufreq_stats *stats)
> +static void cpufreq_stats_update(struct cpufreq_stats *stats,
> +                                unsigned long long time)
>  {
>         unsigned long long cur_time = get_jiffies_64();
>
> -       stats->time_in_state[stats->last_index] += cur_time - stats->last_time;
> +       stats->time_in_state[stats->last_index] += cur_time - time;
>         stats->last_time = cur_time;
>  }
>
> -static void cpufreq_stats_clear_table(struct cpufreq_stats *stats)
> +static void cpufreq_stats_reset_table(struct cpufreq_stats *stats)
>  {
>         unsigned int count = stats->max_state;
>
> @@ -41,42 +46,67 @@ static void cpufreq_stats_clear_table(struct cpufreq_stats *stats)
>         memset(stats->trans_table, 0, count * count * sizeof(int));
>         stats->last_time = get_jiffies_64();
>         stats->total_trans = 0;
> +
> +       /* Adjust for the time elapsed since reset was requested */
> +       WRITE_ONCE(stats->reset_pending, 0);

What if this runs in parallel with store_reset()?

The latter may update reset_pending to 1 before the below runs.
Conversely, this may clear reset_pending right after store_reset() has
set it to 1, but before it manages to set reset_time.  Is that not a
problem?

> +       cpufreq_stats_update(stats, stats->reset_time);
>
>         spin_unlock(&stats->lock);
>  }
>
>  static ssize_t show_total_trans(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
>  {
> -       return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", policy->stats->total_trans);
> +       struct cpufreq_stats *stats = policy->stats;
> +
> +       if (READ_ONCE(stats->reset_pending))
> +               return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", 0);
> +       else
> +               return sprintf(buf, "%d\n", stats->total_trans);
>  }
>  cpufreq_freq_attr_ro(total_trans);
>
>  static ssize_t show_time_in_state(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
>  {
>         struct cpufreq_stats *stats = policy->stats;
> +       bool pending = READ_ONCE(stats->reset_pending);
> +       unsigned long long time;
>         ssize_t len = 0;
>         int i;
>
>         if (policy->fast_switch_enabled)
>                 return 0;
>
> -       spin_lock(&stats->lock);
> -       cpufreq_stats_update(stats);
> -       spin_unlock(&stats->lock);
> -
>         for (i = 0; i < stats->state_num; i++) {
> +               if (pending) {
> +                       if (i == stats->last_index)
> +                               time = get_jiffies_64() - stats->reset_time;

What if this runs in parallel with store_reset() and reads reset_time
before the latter manages to update it?

> +                       else
> +                               time = 0;
> +               } else {
> +                       time = stats->time_in_state[i];
> +                       if (i == stats->last_index)
> +                               time += get_jiffies_64() - stats->last_time;
> +               }
> +
>                 len += sprintf(buf + len, "%u %llu\n", stats->freq_table[i],
> -                       (unsigned long long)
> -                       jiffies_64_to_clock_t(stats->time_in_state[i]));
> +                              jiffies_64_to_clock_t(time));
>         }
>         return len;
>  }
>  cpufreq_freq_attr_ro(time_in_state);
>
> +/* We don't care what is written to the attribute */
>  static ssize_t store_reset(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, const char *buf,
>                            size_t count)
>  {
> -       /* We don't care what is written to the attribute. */
> -       cpufreq_stats_clear_table(policy->stats);
> +       struct cpufreq_stats *stats = policy->stats;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * Defer resetting of stats to cpufreq_stats_record_transition() to
> +        * avoid races.
> +        */
> +       WRITE_ONCE(stats->reset_pending, 1);
> +       stats->reset_time = get_jiffies_64();

AFAICS, there is nothing to ensure that reset_time will be updated in
one go and even to ensure that it won't be partially updated before
setting reset_pending.

This should at least be addressed in a comment to explain why it is
not a problem.

> +
>         return count;
>  }
>  cpufreq_freq_attr_wo(reset);
> @@ -84,8 +114,9 @@ cpufreq_freq_attr_wo(reset);
>  static ssize_t show_trans_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
>  {
>         struct cpufreq_stats *stats = policy->stats;
> +       bool pending = READ_ONCE(stats->reset_pending);
>         ssize_t len = 0;
> -       int i, j;
> +       int i, j, count;
>
>         if (policy->fast_switch_enabled)
>                 return 0;
> @@ -113,8 +144,13 @@ static ssize_t show_trans_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
>                 for (j = 0; j < stats->state_num; j++) {
>                         if (len >= PAGE_SIZE)
>                                 break;
> -                       len += scnprintf(buf + len, PAGE_SIZE - len, "%9u ",
> -                                       stats->trans_table[i*stats->max_state+j]);
> +
> +                       if (pending)
> +                               count = 0;
> +                       else
> +                               count = stats->trans_table[i * stats->max_state + j];
> +
> +                       len += scnprintf(buf + len, PAGE_SIZE - len, "%9u ", count);
>                 }
>                 if (len >= PAGE_SIZE)
>                         break;
> @@ -228,10 +264,11 @@ void cpufreq_stats_record_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>         struct cpufreq_stats *stats = policy->stats;
>         int old_index, new_index;
>
> -       if (!stats) {
> -               pr_debug("%s: No stats found\n", __func__);
> +       if (!stats)
>                 return;
> -       }
> +
> +       if (READ_ONCE(stats->reset_pending))
> +               cpufreq_stats_reset_table(stats);

This is a bit confusing, because cpufreq_stats_reset_table() calls
cpufreq_stats_update() and passes reset_time to it, but it is called
again below with last_time as the second arg.

It is not particularly clear to me why this needs to be done this way.

>
>         old_index = stats->last_index;
>         new_index = freq_table_get_index(stats, new_freq);
> @@ -241,7 +278,7 @@ void cpufreq_stats_record_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>                 return;
>
>         spin_lock(&stats->lock);
> -       cpufreq_stats_update(stats);
> +       cpufreq_stats_update(stats, stats->last_time);
>
>         stats->last_index = new_index;
>         stats->trans_table[old_index * stats->max_state + new_index]++;
> --
> 2.25.0.rc1.19.g042ed3e048af
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ