| 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: <c00ec721-1193-4cfb-87ec-fd98f215720e@samsung.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 08:48:47 +0200
From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Linux PM
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Lukasz Luba
<lukasz.luba@....com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Srinivas
Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>, Dietmar Eggemann
<dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Ricardo Neri
<ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>, Pierre Gondois
<pierre.gondois@....com>, Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] cpufreq/sched: Move cpufreq-specific EAS checks
to cpufreq
On 10.05.2025 13:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sat, May 10, 2025 at 1:49 AM Marek Szyprowski
> <m.szyprowski@...sung.com> wrote:
>> On 06.05.2025 22:37, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>>>
>>> Doing cpufreq-specific EAS checks that require accessing policy
>>> internals directly from sched_is_eas_possible() is a bit unfortunate,
>>> so introduce cpufreq_ready_for_eas() in cpufreq, move those checks
>>> into that new function and make sched_is_eas_possible() call it.
>>>
>>> While at it, address a possible race between the EAS governor check
>>> and governor change by doing the former under the policy rwsem.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
>>> Tested-by: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
>> In my tests I've noticed that this patch, merged as commit 4854649b1fb4
>> ("cpufreq/sched: Move cpufreq-specific EAS checks to cpufreq"), causes a
>> regression on ARM64 Amlogic Meson SoC based OdroidN2 board. The board
>> finally lockups. Reverting $subject on top of next-20250509 fixes this
>> issue. Here is the lockdep warning observed before the lockup:
> Thanks for the report!
>
>> ======================================================
>> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>> 6.15.0-rc5-next-20250509-dirty #10335 Tainted: G C
>> cpufreq: cpufreq_policy_online: CPU2: Running at unlisted initial
>> frequency: 999999 kHz, changing to: 1000000 kHz
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> kworker/3:1/79 is trying to acquire lock:
>> ffff00000494b380 (&policy->rwsem){++++}-{4:4}, at:
>> cpufreq_ready_for_eas+0x60/0xbc
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>> ffff8000832887a0 (sched_domains_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at:
>> partition_sched_domains+0x54/0x938
>>
>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>
>> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>>
>> -> #2 (sched_domains_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}:
>> __mutex_lock+0xa8/0x598
>> mutex_lock_nested+0x24/0x30
>> partition_sched_domains+0x54/0x938
>> rebuild_sched_domains_locked+0x2d4/0x900
>> rebuild_sched_domains+0x2c/0x48
>> rebuild_sched_domains_energy+0x3c/0x58
>> rebuild_sd_workfn+0x10/0x1c
>> process_one_work+0x208/0x604
>> worker_thread+0x244/0x388
>> kthread+0x150/0x228
>> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>>
>> -> #1 (cpuset_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}:
>> __mutex_lock+0xa8/0x598
>> mutex_lock_nested+0x24/0x30
>> cpuset_lock+0x1c/0x28
>> __sched_setscheduler+0x31c/0x830
>> sched_setattr_nocheck+0x18/0x24
>> sugov_init+0x1b4/0x388
>> cpufreq_init_governor.part.0+0x58/0xd4
>> cpufreq_set_policy+0x2c8/0x3ec
>> cpufreq_online+0x520/0xb20
>> cpufreq_add_dev+0x80/0x98
>> subsys_interface_register+0xfc/0x118
>> cpufreq_register_driver+0x150/0x238
>> dt_cpufreq_probe+0x148/0x488
>> platform_probe+0x68/0xdc
>> really_probe+0xbc/0x298
>> __driver_probe_device+0x78/0x12c
>> driver_probe_device+0xdc/0x164
>> __device_attach_driver+0xb8/0x138
>> bus_for_each_drv+0x80/0xdc
>> __device_attach+0xa8/0x1b0
>> device_initial_probe+0x14/0x20
>> bus_probe_device+0xb0/0xb4
>> deferred_probe_work_func+0x8c/0xc8
>> process_one_work+0x208/0x604
>> worker_thread+0x244/0x388
>> kthread+0x150/0x228
>> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>>
>> -> #0 (&policy->rwsem){++++}-{4:4}:
>> __lock_acquire+0x1408/0x2254
>> lock_acquire+0x1c8/0x354
>> down_read+0x60/0x180
>> cpufreq_ready_for_eas+0x60/0xbc
>> sched_is_eas_possible+0x144/0x170
>> partition_sched_domains+0x504/0x938
>> rebuild_sched_domains_locked+0x2d4/0x900
>> rebuild_sched_domains+0x2c/0x48
>> rebuild_sched_domains_energy+0x3c/0x58
>> rebuild_sd_workfn+0x10/0x1c
>> process_one_work+0x208/0x604
>> worker_thread+0x244/0x388
>> kthread+0x150/0x228
>> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>>
>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>
>> Chain exists of:
>> &policy->rwsem --> cpuset_mutex --> sched_domains_mutex
>>
>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>> CPU0 CPU1
>> ---- ----
>> lock(sched_domains_mutex);
>> lock(cpuset_mutex);
>> lock(sched_domains_mutex);
>> rlock(&policy->rwsem);
>>
>> *** DEADLOCK ***
> Well, it turns out that trying to acquire policy->rwsem under
> sched_domains_mutex is a bad idea. It was added to
> cpufreq_policy_is_good_for_eas() to address a theoretical race, so it
> can be dropped safely. A theoretical race is better than a real
> deadlock.
>
> Please test the attached patch.
This fixed the observed issue. Thanks!
Reported-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Tested-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Powered by blists - more mailing lists