Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 13 May 2022 09:57:05 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     Schspa Shi <schspa@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: fix race on cpufreq online
Message-ID: <20220513042705.nbnd6vccuiu6lb7a@vireshk-i7>
References: <20220510035259.5ep52sgahd2a6rie@vireshk-i7>
 <20220510154236.88753-1-schspa@gmail.com>
 <20220511043515.fn2gz6q3kcpdai5p@vireshk-i7>
 <CAMA88TpefB=rnqea2u1zEvNUJNE_kdj4mYito7SGCuMj-o071Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220511122114.wccgyur6g3qs6fps@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJZ5v0gN_yDFpvCXRXv8rN-i3TugCi-HKpBKK2z4eWU0Zm1GUg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0id+7vkqMQEyVRe29oF_dRtzZ0EhoYUn8=yzeENDeABJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220512065623.q4aa6y52pst3zpxu@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJZ5v0jeYiZ6esdxnJbOyDztNqOAbjcjxmpca3JTFWRh+cwdBw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0jeYiZ6esdxnJbOyDztNqOAbjcjxmpca3JTFWRh+cwdBw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 12-05-22, 12:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Well, would there be a problem with moving the
> cpufreq_policy_put_kobj() call to the front of cpufreq_policy_free()?

Emptying cpufreq_cpu_data first is required, else someone else will
end up doing kobject_get() again.

> If we did that, we'd know that everything could be torn down safely,
> because nobody would be holding references to the policy any more.

With the way we are progressing now, we will always have policy->cpus
empty while we reach cpufreq_policy_free(). With that I think we will
be safe with the current code here. I would also add a BUG_ON() here
for non empty policy->cpus to be safe.

> > > TBH, I'm not sure why show() doesn't check policy_is_inactive() under the rwsem.
> >
> > I agree, both show/store should have it.
> >
> > > Moreover, I'm not sure why the locking dance in store() is necessary.
> >
> > commit fdd320da84c6 ("cpufreq: Lock CPU online/offline in cpufreq_register_driver()")
> 
> I get that, but I'm wondering if locking CPU hotplug from store() is
> needed at all.  I mean, if we are in store(), we are holding an active
> reference to the policy kobject, so the policy cannot go away until we
> are done anyway.  Thus it should be sufficient to use the policy rwsem
> for synchronization.

I think after the current patchset is applied and we have the inactive
policy check in store(), we won't required the dance after all.

-- 
viresh