On Tuesday, October 26, 2010, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Alan Stern (stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >
> > > * Peter Zijlstra (peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 11:56 -0500, Pierre Tardy wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > + trace_runtime_pm_usage(dev, atomic_read(&dev->power.usage_count)+1);
> > > > > atomic_inc(&dev->power.usage_count);
> > > >
> > > > That's terribly racy..
> > >
> > > Looking at the original code, it looks racy even without considering the
> > > tracepoint:
> > >
> > > int __pm_runtime_get(struct device *dev, bool sync)
> > > {
> > > int retval;
> > >
> > > + trace_runtime_pm_usage(dev, atomic_read(&dev->power.usage_count)+1);
> > > atomic_inc(&dev->power.usage_count);
> > > retval = sync ? pm_runtime_resume(dev) : pm_request_resume(dev);
> > >
> > > There is no implied memory barrier after "atomic_inc". So either all these
> > > inc/dec are protected with mutexes or spinlocks, in which case one might wonder
> > > why atomic operations are used at all, or it's a racy mess. (I vote for the
> > > second option)
> >
> > I don't understand. What's the problem? The inc/dec are atomic
> > because they are not protected by spinlocks, but everything else is
> > (aside from the tracepoint, which is new).
> >
> > > kref should certainly be used there.
> >
> > What for?
>
> kref has the following "get":
>
> atomic_inc(&kref->refcount);
> smp_mb__after_atomic_inc();
>
> What seems to be missing in __pm_runtime_get() and pm_runtime_get_noresume() is
> the memory barrier after the atomic increment. The atomic increment is free to
> be reordered into the following spinlock (within pm_request_resume or pm_request
> resume execution) because taking a spinlock only acts as a memory barrier with
> acquire semantic, not a full memory barrier.
>
> So AFAIU, the failure scenario would be as follows (sorry for the 80+ columns):
>
> initial conditions: usage_count = 1
>
> CPU A CPU B
> 1) __pm_runtime_get() (sync = true)
> 2) atomic_inc(&usage_count) (not committed to memory yet)
> 3) pm_runtime_resume()
> 4) spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->power.lock, flags);
> 5) retval = __pm_request_resume(dev);
If sync = true this is
retval = __pm_runtime_resume(dev);
which drops and reacquires the spinlock. In the meantime it sets
->power.runtime_status so that __pm_runtime_idle() will fail if run at this
point.
> 6) (execute the body of __pm_request_resume and return)
> 7) __pm_runtime_put() (sync = true)
> 8) if (atomic_dec_and_test(&dev->power.usage_count))
> (still see usage_count == 1 before decrement,
> thus decrement to 0)
> 9) pm_runtime_idle()
> 10) spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->power.lock, flags)
> 11) spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> 12) retval = __pm_runtime_idle(dev);
Moreover, __pm_runtime_idle() checks ->power.usage_count under the spinlock,
so it will see it's been incremented in the meantime and it will back off.
> 13) spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
>
> So we end up in a situation where CPU A expects the device to be resumed, but
> the last action performed has been to bring it to idle.
>
> A smp_mb__after_atomic_inc() between lines 2 and 3 would fix this.
I don't think this particular race is possible. However, there is another one
that seems to be possible (in a different function) that an explicit barrier
will prevent from happening.
It's related to pm_runtime_get_noresume(), but I think it's better to put the
barrier where it's necessary rather than into pm_runtime_get_noresume() itself.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-trace-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|