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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <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>
 <20220513042705.nbnd6vccuiu6lb7a@vireshk-i7> <20220524111456.hw4qugsvt4bm7reh@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJZ5v0i_qpcaUwdZY=KR_e=HC6MZUw2aDGL=hxgo866dF1zwOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220524112917.apcvvvblksg7jdu4@vireshk-i7> <CAJZ5v0jRtYcscWjUras9RC9LOTHf=qu1SPBhnC=52Gb3KKAQNw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0jRtYcscWjUras9RC9LOTHf=qu1SPBhnC=52Gb3KKAQNw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 24 May 2022 13:53:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hHcW-JkXyOZ7ftR+sUQxysEV2--j29owdojYbg_dR_iw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: fix race on cpufreq online
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     Schspa Shi <schspa@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 1:48 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 1:29 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 24-05-22, 13:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 1:15 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 13-05-22, 09:57, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > > On 12-05-22, 12:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > I was writing a patch for this and then thought maybe look at mails
> > > > around this time, when you sent the patch, and found the reason why we
> > > > need the locking dance :)
> > > >
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20150729091136.GN7557@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk/
> >
> > Actually no, this is for the lock in cpufreq_driver_register().
> >
> > > Well, again, if we are in store(), we are holding a reference to the
> > > policy kobject, so this is not initialization time.
> >
> > This is the commit which made the change.
> >
> > commit 4f750c930822 ("cpufreq: Synchronize the cpufreq store_*() routines with CPU hotplug")
>
> So this was done before the entire CPU hotplug rework and it was
> useful at that time.
>
> The current code always runs cpufreq_set_policy() under policy->rwsem
> and governors are stopped under policy->rwsem, so this particular race
> cannot happen AFAICS.
>
> Locking CPU hotplug prevents CPUs from going away while store() is
> running, but in order to run store(), the caller must hold an active
> reference to the policy kobject.  That prevents the policy from being
> freed and so policy->rwsem can be acquired.  After policy->rwsem has
> been acquired, policy->cpus can be checked to determine whether or not
> there are any online CPUs for the given policy (there may be none),
> because policy->cpus is only manipulated under policy->rwsem.
>
> If a CPU that belongs to the given policy is going away,
> cpufreq_offline() has to remove it from policy->cpus under
> policy->rwsem, so either it has to wait for store() to release
> policy->rwsem, or store() will acquire policy->rwsem after it and will
> find that policy->cpus is empty.

Moreover, locking CPU hotplug doesn't actually prevent
cpufreq_remove_dev() from running which can happen when the cpufreq
driver is unregistered, for example.