Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1260893 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: Protect updates to list_dev with mutex

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: Protect updates to list_dev with mutex Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> - 2015-11-02 20:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: Protect updates to list_dev with mutex Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2015-11-04 03:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: Protect updates to list_dev with mutex Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2015-11-05 09:50 +0100

#1260893 — Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: Protect updates to list_dev with mutex

On 10/31, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 30-10-15, 10:06, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 10/30, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > dev_opp_list_lock is used everywhere to protect device and OPP lists,
> > > but dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus() is missed somehow. And instead we used
> > > rcu-lock, which wouldn't help here as we are adding a new list_dev.
> > > 
> > > This also fixes a problem where we have called kzalloc(..., GFP_KERNEL)
> > > from within rcu-lock, which isn't allowed as kzalloc can sleep when
> > > called with GFP_KERNEL.
> > 
> > Care to share the splat here?
> 
> I don't know what is wrong (or right) with my exynos 5250 board, but I
> didn't got any splat here even with the right config options (yes I
> should have mentioned that earlier). I have seen this at other times
> as well, while we were running after some cpufreq traces..
> 
> But, the case in hand is pretty straight forward and Mike T. did get a
> splat as that's what he told me. We are calling a sleep-able function
> from rcu_lock and that's obviously wrong.

That's slightly concerning. Given that the bug is so straight
forward but we can't reproduce it doesn't instill a lot of
confidence that the patch is correct.

> 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp/cpu.c b/drivers/base/power/opp/cpu.c
> > > index 7654c5606307..91f15b2e25ee 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/power/opp/cpu.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp/cpu.c
> > > @@ -124,12 +124,12 @@ int dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus(struct device *cpu_dev, cpumask_var_t cpumask)
> > >  	struct device *dev;
> > >  	int cpu, ret = 0;
> > >  
> > > -	rcu_read_lock();
> > > +	mutex_lock(&dev_opp_list_lock);
> > >  
> > >  	dev_opp = _find_device_opp(cpu_dev);
> > 
> > So does _find_device_opp() need to be called with rcu_read_lock()
> > held or not? The comment above the function makes it sound like
> > we need RCU, but we don't do that here anymore.
> 
> That is more for the readers, as this function is going to return a
> pointer to the device OPP, and to make sure it isn't freed behind
> their back, they need to take the RCU lock.
> 
> There are other writer code paths as well, like add-opp, where we just
> take the mutex as there can't be anything stronger than that :)
> 

Agreed, but the comment above the function is misleading. We
should correct that comment and/or add the lockdep checks to the
function like we have elsewhere in this file.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1262034

On 02-11-15, 11:14, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 10/31, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 30-10-15, 10:06, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > On 10/30, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > dev_opp_list_lock is used everywhere to protect device and OPP lists,
> > > > but dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus() is missed somehow. And instead we used
> > > > rcu-lock, which wouldn't help here as we are adding a new list_dev.
> > > > 
> > > > This also fixes a problem where we have called kzalloc(..., GFP_KERNEL)
> > > > from within rcu-lock, which isn't allowed as kzalloc can sleep when
> > > > called with GFP_KERNEL.
> > > 
> > > Care to share the splat here?
> > 
> > I don't know what is wrong (or right) with my exynos 5250 board, but I
> > didn't got any splat here even with the right config options (yes I
> > should have mentioned that earlier). I have seen this at other times
> > as well, while we were running after some cpufreq traces..
> > 
> > But, the case in hand is pretty straight forward and Mike T. did get a
> > splat as that's what he told me. We are calling a sleep-able function
> > from rcu_lock and that's obviously wrong.
> 
> That's slightly concerning. Given that the bug is so straight
> forward but we can't reproduce it doesn't instill a lot of
> confidence that the patch is correct.

I have asked Mike to provide the splat he got and test the new patch
to see if it is fixed or not.

> > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp/cpu.c b/drivers/base/power/opp/cpu.c
> > > > index 7654c5606307..91f15b2e25ee 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/base/power/opp/cpu.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp/cpu.c
> > > > @@ -124,12 +124,12 @@ int dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus(struct device *cpu_dev, cpumask_var_t cpumask)
> > > >  	struct device *dev;
> > > >  	int cpu, ret = 0;
> > > >  
> > > > -	rcu_read_lock();
> > > > +	mutex_lock(&dev_opp_list_lock);
> > > >  
> > > >  	dev_opp = _find_device_opp(cpu_dev);
> > > 
> > > So does _find_device_opp() need to be called with rcu_read_lock()
> > > held or not? The comment above the function makes it sound like
> > > we need RCU, but we don't do that here anymore.
> > 
> > That is more for the readers, as this function is going to return a
> > pointer to the device OPP, and to make sure it isn't freed behind
> > their back, they need to take the RCU lock.
> > 
> > There are other writer code paths as well, like add-opp, where we just
> > take the mutex as there can't be anything stronger than that :)
> > 
> 
> Agreed, but the comment above the function is misleading. We
> should correct that comment and/or add the lockdep checks to the
> function like we have elsewhere in this file.

Will do.

-- 
viresh
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1263012

On 02-11-15, 11:14, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 10/31, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > I don't know what is wrong (or right) with my exynos 5250 board, but I
> > didn't got any splat here even with the right config options (yes I
> > should have mentioned that earlier). I have seen this at other times
> > as well, while we were running after some cpufreq traces..
> > 
> > But, the case in hand is pretty straight forward and Mike T. did get a
> > splat as that's what he told me. We are calling a sleep-able function
> > from rcu_lock and that's obviously wrong.
> 
> That's slightly concerning. Given that the bug is so straight
> forward but we can't reproduce it doesn't instill a lot of
> confidence that the patch is correct.

Good that I spent some time debugging why I wasn't able to hit the
lockdep. And that's because by default CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU was
selected on exynos and so the dummy function was getting enabled, and
so no WARN.

#if defined(CONFIG_PROVE_RCU) && !defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU)
static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void)
{
	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map),
			 "Illegal context switch in RCU read-side critical section");
}
#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */
static inline void rcu_preempt_sleep_check(void)
{
}
#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU */

Whereas for omap, that's not the case :)

So, with some config changes, I was able to hit the lockdep :)

And just to confirm, they got fixed by the $Subject patch :)

-- 
viresh
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web