Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752326AbaBXIjM (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 03:39:12 -0500 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.11.231]:34722 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752209AbaBXIjJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 03:39:09 -0500 Message-ID: <1f7bd419ce78af0137c0d63189c6ad35.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org> In-Reply-To: <530AF7E4.5080806@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1393225072-3997-1-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> <530AF7E4.5080806@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 08:39:08 -0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Set policy to non-NULL only after all hotplug online work is done From: skannan@codeaurora.org To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Cc: "Saravana Kannan" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Viresh Kumar" , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22-3.el6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On 02/24/2014 12:27 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >> The existing code sets the per CPU policy to a non-NULL value before all >> the steps performed during the hotplug online path is done. >> Specifically, >> this is done before the policy min/max, governors, etc are initialized >> for >> the policy. This in turn means that calls to cpufreq_cpu_get() return a >> non-NULL policy before the policy/CPU is ready to be used. >> >> To fix this, move the update of per CPU policy to a valid value after >> all >> the initialization steps for the policy are completed. >> >> Example kernel panic without this fix: >> [ 512.146185] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at >> virtual address 00000020 >> [ 512.146195] pgd = c0003000 >> [ 512.146213] [00000020] *pgd=80000000004003, *pmd=00000000 >> [ 512.146228] Internal error: Oops: 206 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM >> >> [ 512.146297] PC is at __cpufreq_governor+0x10/0x1ac >> [ 512.146312] LR is at cpufreq_update_policy+0x114/0x150 >> >> [ 512.149740] ---[ end trace f23a8defea6cd706 ]--- >> [ 512.149761] Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception >> [ 513.152016] CPU0: stopping >> [ 513.154710] CPU: 0 PID: 7136 Comm: mpdecision Tainted: G D W >> 3.10.0-gd727407-00074-g979ede8 #396 >> >> [ 513.317224] [] (notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x68) from >> [] (__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x58) >> [ 513.327809] [] (__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x58) >> from [] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x14/0x1c) >> [ 513.339182] [] (blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x14/0x1c) >> from [] (cpufreq_set_policy+0xd4/0x2b8) >> [ 513.349594] [] (cpufreq_set_policy+0xd4/0x2b8) from >> [] (cpufreq_init_policy+0x30/0x98) >> [ 513.359231] [] (cpufreq_init_policy+0x30/0x98) from >> [] (__cpufreq_add_dev.isra.17+0x4dc/0x7a4) >> [ 513.369560] [] (__cpufreq_add_dev.isra.17+0x4dc/0x7a4) from >> [] (cpufreq_cpu_callback+0x58/0x84) >> [ 513.379978] [] (cpufreq_cpu_callback+0x58/0x84) from >> [] (notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x68) >> [ 513.389704] [] (notifier_call_chain+0x40/0x68) from >> [] (__cpu_notify+0x28/0x44) >> [ 513.398728] [] (__cpu_notify+0x28/0x44) from [] >> (_cpu_up+0xf4/0x1dc) >> [ 513.406797] [] (_cpu_up+0xf4/0x1dc) from [] >> (cpu_up+0x5c/0x78) >> [ 513.414357] [] (cpu_up+0x5c/0x78) from [] >> (store_online+0x44/0x74) >> [ 513.422253] [] (store_online+0x44/0x74) from [] >> (sysfs_write_file+0x108/0x14c) >> [ 513.431195] [] (sysfs_write_file+0x108/0x14c) from >> [] (vfs_write+0xd0/0x180) >> [ 513.439958] [] (vfs_write+0xd0/0x180) from [] >> (SyS_write+0x38/0x68) >> [ 513.447947] [] (SyS_write+0x38/0x68) from [] >> (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x30) >> >> In this specific case, CPU0 set's CPU1's policy->governor in >> cpufreq_init_policy() to NULL while CPU1 is using the policy->governor >> in >> __cpufreq_governor(). >> > > Whoa! That's horrible! Can you please explain how exactly you > triggered this? I'm curious... Just call cpufreq_update_policy(cpu) on a CPU and have another thread online/offline it. > >> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan >> --- >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 10 +++++----- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> index cb003a6..d5ceb43 100644 >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> @@ -1109,11 +1109,6 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, >> struct subsys_interface *sif, >> goto err_set_policy_cpu; >> } >> >> - write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags); >> - for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus) >> - per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = policy; >> - write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags); >> - >> if (cpufreq_driver->get) { >> policy->cur = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu); > > If you move the per-cpu init further down, then what happens to the > cpufreq_generic_get() that gets invoked here by some of the drivers? While cpufreq_generic_get() was a good refactor, I think it's causing unnecessary cyclic dependency. You need that function to not fail for a policy to get added properly and you need a proper policy for the function to work. I care more about fixing the panic than trying to keep cpufreq_generic_get(). > It will almost always fail (because policy will be NULL) and hence > CPU online will be unsuccessful (though you wont observe it because > the error code is not bubbled up to the CPU hotplug core; perhaps we > should). Good catch. I actually hit this issue, fixed and test it on a 3.12 cpufreq code base. Since this new function isn't there at that point, I missed it. Even if I did use the latest kernel, I wouldn't have hit this issue, because the MSM cpufreq driver doesn't use this function. > > IMHO, we should fix the synchronization in cpufreq_init_policy(). > I notice cpufreq_update_policy() as well as __cpufreq_governor() in > your stack trace, which means cpufreq_set_policy() was involved. > cpufreq_update_policy() takes the policy->rwsem for write, whereas > cpufreq_init_policy() doesn't take that lock at all, which is clearly > wrong. > > My guess is that, if we fix that locking, everything will be fine and > you won't hit the bug. Would you like to give that a shot? While locking might need fixing, this is not about the locking though. Plenty of drivers and the framework use cpufreq_cpu_get() to get a policy that they consider valid and also use it as a way to check and reject API calls trying to manipulate an offline CPU. Without this fix, the framework is advertising an incomplete policy object as available. I think that breaks the CPUfreq framework APIs in a very fundamental sense. This is a "no-no" in programming. It's like trying to register a CPUfreq driver before getting the clocks to control the CPU. As for the ->get() issue, I think the framework should just call clk_get_rate() instead of calling .get() if policy->clk is not NULL. No point in doing framework -> driver -> framework. Thanks, Saravana -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/