Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932314AbaGaKVl (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:21:41 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:31825 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756304AbaGaKVj (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:21:39 -0400 Message-ID: <53DA18AD.1020409@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:21:33 -0400 From: Prarit Bhargava User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131028 Thunderbird/17.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Saravana Kannan CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Viresh Kumar , Lenny Szubowicz , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq, store_scaling_governor requires policy->rwsem to be held for duration of changing governors [v2] References: <1406634362-811-1-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com> <1816455.s1k7EgIPj9@vostro.rjw.lan> <53D99D80.8090905@codeaurora.org> <3140593.vs3eOK6CdF@vostro.rjw.lan> <53DA177C.80504@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <53DA177C.80504@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/31/2014 06:16 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > On 07/30/2014 10:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 06:36:00 PM Saravana Kannan wrote: >>> On 07/30/2014 02:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 10:18:25 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 07/29/2014 08:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 07:46:02 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>>> >>>> [cut] >>>> >>>>>>> This patch effectively reverts commit 955ef483. >>> >>> The issue reported in this patch is valid. We are seeing that internally >>> too. I believe I reported it in another thread (within the past month). >>> >>> However, the original patch fixes a real deadlock issue (I'm too tired >>> to look it up now). We can revet the original, but it's going to bring >>> back the original issue. I just want to make sure Prarit and Raphael >>> realize this before proceeding. > > Hi Saravana, > > Thanks for your input. I went back to the code and confirmed my original > statement about this patch. > > Note: in a previous email I erroneously wrote "buffer->mutex" when I should > have identified the lock as sysfs_mutex. Sorry 'bout that, and apologies > for any confusion that may have caused. > > From my commit message: > > "In any case, the current linux.git code no longer can reproduce the original > failure; the locking in the sysfs release code has changed." > > The original patch attempted to fix this deadlock: > > A cpufreq driver on a file read did: > > -> #0 (&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)){+++++.}: > [] __lock_acquire+0xef3/0x13dc > [] lock_acquire+0x61/0xbc > [] down_read+0x25/0x30 > [] lock_policy_rwsem_read+0x25/0x34 > [] show+0x21/0x58 > [] sysfs_read_file+0x67/0xcc > [] vfs_read+0x63/0xd8 > [] sys_read+0x2f/0x50 > [] ret_fast_syscall+0x1/0x52 > > lock(s_active#41) [ which is actually the acquisition of sysfs_mutex ] > lock(&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)); > > and on the governor switch (notably the EXIT of the existing governor), the > opposite occurs > > -> #1 (s_active#41){++++.+}: > [] lock_acquire+0x61/0xbc > [] sysfs_addrm_finish+0xc1/0x128 > [] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x35/0x64 > [] remove_files.isra.0+0x1b/0x24 > [] sysfs_remove_group+0x2d/0xa8 > [] cpufreq_governor_interactive+0x13b/0x35c > [] __cpufreq_governor+0x2b/0x8c > [] __cpufreq_set_policy+0xa9/0xf8 > [] store_scaling_governor+0x61/0x100 > [] store+0x39/0x60 > [] sysfs_write_file+0xed/0x114 > [] vfs_write+0x65/0xd8 > [] sys_write+0x2f/0x50 > [] ret_fast_syscall+0x1/0x52 > > > lock(&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)); > lock(s_active#41) [ which is actually the acquisition of sysfs_mutex ] > > The sysfs_mutex no longer blocks in the sysfs path, and I have built with > LOCKDEP on and off to confirm that I do not see any tracebacks or hangs. I > tested this by doing a few reads of the current governor, and then doing a > governor switch (to at least initiate the LOCKDEP warning). IIUC the traceback > above that is the way to reproduce this LOCKDEP warning. ^^^ this should not be taken as 'I did only a few reads ...'. I tested quite extensively across 15 different systems and added a read of the scaling_governor files in my little reproducer. P. -- 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/