On 07/29/2013 01:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, July 29, 2013 04:52:39 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat
>> <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I'm assuming that the module_get() is used in the cpufreq core to ensure that
>>> until the cpufreq core is managing (atleast one) CPU(s), the cpufreq backend
>>> driver module (eg: acpi-cpufreq) can't be removed.
>>
>> I missed this simple stuff in my email.. :(
>>
>>> But the cpufreq_add_dev() function does a module *put* at the end of
>>> initializing a fresh CPU.
>>>
>>> 1057 kobject_uevent(&policy->kobj, KOBJ_ADD);
>>> 1058 module_put(cpufreq_driver->owner);
>>> 1059 pr_debug("initialization complete\n");
>>> 1060
>>> 1061 return 0;
>>
>> That actually looks wrong. And shoud be fixed.
>
> OK
>
>>> So, I wonder if it would be a good idea to instead allow that CPU to take a
>>> module refcount as well. That way, the problem that Toralf reported would go
>>> away, and at the same time, we can ensure that as long as the cpufreq core is
>>> managing CPUs, the cpufreq-backend-driver module refcount never drops to zero.
>>>
>>> Something like this:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>> index a4ad733..ecfbc52 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>> @@ -878,9 +878,14 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev_interface(unsigned int cpu,
>>> }
>>> write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
>>>
>>> + /* Bump up the refcount for this CPU */
>>> + policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
>>> +
>>> ret = cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(cpu, policy);
>>> - if (ret)
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>>> goto err_out_kobj_put;
>>> + }
>>
>> That will do an extra kobject_get() which we don't require.. Only removing what
>> I mentioned earlier should be good enough, I believe.
>>
>> Over that, I think below code in __cpufreq_governor() is also wrong.
>>
>> /* we keep one module reference alive for
>> each CPU governed by this CPU */
>> if ((event != CPUFREQ_GOV_START) || ret)
>> module_put(policy->governor->owner);
>> if ((event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP) && !ret)
>> module_put(policy->governor->owner);
>>
>> The second if is sensible as it puts count when governor is stopped.
>> But the first one decrements the count when we failed for anything
>> other than START..
>>
>> But this routine is called for other stuff too:
>> - INIT/Exit
>> - LIMITS,
>>
>> And so, count must be incremented for a passed INIT call and
>> decremented for a passed EXIT call, otherwise shouldn't be
>> touched.
>
> That sounds good, but I don't want to make those changes for 3.11 and at the
> same time I *do* want the reference count issue to go away.
>
> So the patch below is the one I'd like to apply for the time being and
> we can work on more improvements on top of that.
>
> Any objections?
>
> Toralf, please test this patch in the meantime.
works - tested on top of 3.10.4
> Rafael
>
>
> ---
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: cpufreq: Fix cpufreq driver module refcount balance after suspend/resume
>
> Since cpufreq_cpu_put() called by __cpufreq_remove_dev() drops the
> driver module refcount, __cpufreq_remove_dev() causes that refcount
> to become negative for the cpufreq driver after a suspend/resume
> cycle.
>
> This is not the only bad thing that happens there, however, because
> kobject_put() should only be called for the policy kobject at this
> point if the CPU is not the last one for that policy.
>
> Namely, if the given CPU is the last one for that policy, the
> policy kobject's refcount should be 1 at this point, as set by
> cpufreq_add_dev_interface(), and only needs to be dropped once for
> the kobject to go away. This actually happens under the cpu == 1
> check, so it need not be done before by cpufreq_cpu_put().
>
> On the other hand, if the given CPU is not the last one for that
> policy, this means that cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() has been called
> at least once for that policy and cpufreq_cpu_get() has been
> called for it too. To balance that cpufreq_cpu_get(), we need to
> call cpufreq_cpu_put() in that case.
>
> Thus, to fix the described problem and keep the reference
> counters balanced in both cases, move the cpufreq_cpu_get() call
> in __cpufreq_remove_dev() to the code path executed only for
> CPUs that share the policy with other CPUs.
>
> Reported-by: Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@xxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1177,14 +1177,11 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct d
> __func__, cpu_dev->id, cpu);
> }
>
> - if ((cpus == 1) && (cpufreq_driver->target))
> - __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT);
> -
> - pr_debug("%s: removing link, cpu: %d\n", __func__, cpu);
> - cpufreq_cpu_put(data);
> -
> /* If cpu is last user of policy, free policy */
> if (cpus == 1) {
> + if (cpufreq_driver->target)
> + __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT);
> +
> lock_policy_rwsem_read(cpu);
> kobj = &data->kobj;
> cmp = &data->kobj_unregister;
> @@ -1205,9 +1202,13 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct d
> free_cpumask_var(data->related_cpus);
> free_cpumask_var(data->cpus);
> kfree(data);
> - } else if (cpufreq_driver->target) {
> - __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_START);
> - __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
> + } else {
> + pr_debug("%s: removing link, cpu: %d\n", __func__, cpu);
> + cpufreq_cpu_put(data);
> + if (cpufreq_driver->target) {
> + __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_START);
> + __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
> + }
> }
>
> per_cpu(cpufreq_policy_cpu, cpu) = -1;
>
>
--
MfG/Sincerely
Toralf Förster
pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
