* [email protected] ([email protected]) wrote:
> Commit b14893a62c73af0eca414cfed505b8c09efc613c although it was very
> much needed to cleanup ondemand timer cleanly, openup a can of worms
> related to locking dependencies in cpufreq.
> 
> Patch here defines the need for dbs_mutex and cleans up its usage in
> ondemand governor. This also resolves the lockdep warnings reported here
> 
> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.1/01925.html
> 
> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <[email protected]>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c |   37 +++++++++++++++--------------------
>  1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c 
> b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> index 1911d17..b2d2106 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> @@ -78,15 +78,14 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpu_dbs_info_s, 
> cpu_dbs_info);
>  static unsigned int dbs_enable;      /* number of CPUs using this policy */
>  
>  /*
> - * DEADLOCK ALERT! There is a ordering requirement between cpu_hotplug
> - * lock and dbs_mutex. cpu_hotplug lock should always be held before
> - * dbs_mutex. If any function that can potentially take cpu_hotplug lock
> - * (like __cpufreq_driver_target()) is being called with dbs_mutex taken, 
> then
> - * cpu_hotplug lock should be taken before that. Note that cpu_hotplug lock
> - * is recursive for the same process. -Venki
> - * DEADLOCK ALERT! (2) : do_dbs_timer() must not take the dbs_mutex, because 
> it
> - * would deadlock with cancel_delayed_work_sync(), which is needed for proper
> - * raceless workqueue teardown.
> + * dbs_mutex protects data in dbs_tuners_ins from concurrent changes on
> + * different CPUs. It also serializes dbs_enable usage in CPUFREQ_GOV_START
> + * and CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP.
> + *
> + * dbs_mutex should be always held after lock_policy_rwsem whenever needed.
> + * do_dbs_timer() must not take the dbs_mutex, because it would deadlock
> + * with cancel_delayed_work_sync(), which is needed for proper raceless
> + * workqueue teardown.
>   */
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(dbs_mutex);
>  
> @@ -240,12 +239,10 @@ static ssize_t store_sampling_rate(struct 
> cpufreq_policy *unused,
>       unsigned int input;
>       int ret;
>       ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &input);
> +     if (ret != 1)
> +             return -EINVAL;
>  
>       mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
> -     if (ret != 1) {
> -             mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> -             return -EINVAL;
> -     }
>       dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate = max(input, min_sampling_rate);
>       mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>  
> @@ -258,14 +255,12 @@ static ssize_t store_up_threshold(struct cpufreq_policy 
> *unused,
>       unsigned int input;
>       int ret;
>       ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &input);
> -
> -     mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>       if (ret != 1 || input > MAX_FREQUENCY_UP_THRESHOLD ||
>                       input < MIN_FREQUENCY_UP_THRESHOLD) {
> -             mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>               return -EINVAL;
>       }
>  
> +     mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>       dbs_tuners_ins.up_threshold = input;
>       mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>  
> @@ -324,8 +319,8 @@ static ssize_t store_powersave_bias(struct cpufreq_policy 
> *unused,
>  
>       mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>       dbs_tuners_ins.powersave_bias = input;
> -     ondemand_powersave_bias_init();
>       mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> +     ondemand_powersave_bias_init();
>  
>       return count;
>  }
> @@ -598,14 +593,16 @@ static int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy 
> *policy,
>                               max(min_sampling_rate,
>                                   latency * LATENCY_MULTIPLIER);
>               }
> +             mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> +
>               dbs_timer_init(this_dbs_info);
>  
> -             mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>               break;
>  
>       case CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP:
> -             mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>               dbs_timer_exit(this_dbs_info);

Hrm, so.. how do we protect against concurrent :

CPUFREQ_GOV_START/CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP now ?

Mathieu

> +
> +             mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>               sysfs_remove_group(&policy->kobj, &dbs_attr_group);
>               dbs_enable--;
>               mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> @@ -613,14 +610,12 @@ static int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy 
> *policy,
>               break;
>  
>       case CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS:
> -             mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>               if (policy->max < this_dbs_info->cur_policy->cur)
>                       __cpufreq_driver_target(this_dbs_info->cur_policy,
>                               policy->max, CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
>               else if (policy->min > this_dbs_info->cur_policy->cur)
>                       __cpufreq_driver_target(this_dbs_info->cur_policy,
>                               policy->min, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
> -             mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
>               break;
>       }
>       return 0;
> -- 
> 1.6.0.6
> 
> -- 
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to