From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20A8C32771 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 06:28:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D2E2073A for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2020 06:28:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Erj1y32A" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726605AbgATG2A (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2020 01:28:00 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-f65.google.com ([209.85.216.65]:33766 "EHLO mail-pj1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725876AbgATG2A (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Jan 2020 01:28:00 -0500 Received: by mail-pj1-f65.google.com with SMTP id u63so5925816pjb.0; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:27:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ET0q8WYL5rkQ5IzRJ2JKF9s36w4Hlm44GgUbEbrS44E=; b=Erj1y32AGIZ/G/ywtpfnwzBkrrKgXEVyIRkm40EDXpAfTpeZ9W+XoFe11MWAqX2DUW 3ZPwcdJVrvnaNOOVRcOLi73URdiDDZu6Qb5oT+S1mUE5l4f488lKR/tR0EtU2k/+WEuz UswaBkpQ4lIMEZwRPRbxdyazKu52nH2naCRGGSvDBqKZGwPp7ee9iOPHTBGcOMMTIBlD /itR2YqyOfeYtOJv4DHZVyNgw3zND2hdh2JcrIhbDRtDTT7T3gqPGbRgMTx4z3yEbvSU PvQVJjKViJieiTBnCG65q59iOozdkd5RpIe1SDezO4zmZjDsSI/ZGi0ii9DhazxfVkWQ SfdA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=ET0q8WYL5rkQ5IzRJ2JKF9s36w4Hlm44GgUbEbrS44E=; b=YXpFNBTxPypaVX7s9tPRp0Lj+Y36XIh5+s9Ge1Rn5gozhJGXiP7oKwBlZdcs3rFGJK x7hensAxXVCOuo0RUsySR3LjqmNkSMMzL97nivd9LVe2l+k4lu4Ya5JHrIPZ5I6InBiT +j3liY2BZvbpu3Aaxk/rjU0gzwHmcrKWhGgDjEFvQQYmLGcrLTYk4coLfYjVT2zICNUF tRgDUgip3Yv4ouu2Rb82JRvfJYEFA9MMlcBirNaH/4sG5ONb+MdKqDJazjZDbQVz1lnq bouceaRtOlZT/RFOPB+jkUqiVukEza2QczGW9DCzZNSuBlRGm5p0MeZwbcqYfV1Ye+LH bw4g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVzNlRtNL+4XBKBON0RAH7du5Dj+8JYncJHDbAq4cGwut3wQeib ND4YDROVATF1fDD6KwRgGzY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxJSnRtEDcsAeHFLYuYgmxozPkFuG1tXw2UrBNICvQl0lo4UimdAnbGfJJmfT410oYAEZc8YQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d156:: with SMTP id t22mr21189542pjw.108.1579501679487; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:27:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([43.224.245.179]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x21sm37292863pfn.164.2020.01.19.22.27.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:27:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:27:56 +0800 From: chenqiwu To: Viresh Kumar Cc: mmayer@broadcom.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, f.fainelli@gmail.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chenqiwu Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: brcmstb-avs: fix imbalance of cpufreq policy refcount Message-ID: <20200120062756.GA5802@cqw-OptiPlex-7050> References: <1579417750-21984-1-git-send-email-qiwuchen55@gmail.com> <20200120053250.igkwofqfzvmqb3c3@vireshk-i7> <20200120055822.GB5185@cqw-OptiPlex-7050> <20200120060134.izotrbzjvzk327zx@vireshk-i7> <20200120061356.GA5605@cqw-OptiPlex-7050> <20200120062126.nmxaqhcpqcojuihr@vireshk-i7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200120062126.nmxaqhcpqcojuihr@vireshk-i7> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:51:26AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 20-01-20, 14:13, chenqiwu wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:31:34AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 20-01-20, 13:58, chenqiwu wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 11:02:50AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > On 19-01-20, 15:09, qiwuchen55@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > From: chenqiwu > > > > > > > > > > > > brcm_avs_cpufreq_get() calls cpufreq_cpu_get() to get the cpufreq policy, > > > > > > meanwhile, it also increments the kobject reference count to mark it busy. > > > > > > However, a corresponding call of cpufreq_cpu_put() is ignored to decrement > > > > > > the kobject reference count back, which may lead to a potential stuck risk > > > > > > that the cpuhp thread deadly waits for dropping of kobject refcount when > > > > > > cpufreq policy free. > > > > > > > > > > > > For fixing this bug, cpufreq_get_policy() is referenced to do a proper > > > > > > cpufreq_cpu_get()/cpufreq_cpu_put() and fill a policy copy for the user. > > > > > > If the policy return NULL, we just return 0 to hit the code path of > > > > > > cpufreq_driver->get. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: chenqiwu > > > > > > --- > > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > > > > > > index 77b0e5d..ee0d404 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > > > > > > @@ -452,8 +452,16 @@ static bool brcm_avs_is_firmware_loaded(struct private_data *priv) > > > > > > > > > > > > static unsigned int brcm_avs_cpufreq_get(unsigned int cpu) > > > > > > { > > > > > > - struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); > > > > > > > > > > Why can't we just add a corresponding cpufreq_cpu_put() instead of all this ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > cpufreq_get_policy() does a proper cpufreq_cpu_get()/cpufreq_cpu_put(), > > > > meanwhile fills a policy copy for the user. It equals to using > > > > cpufreq_cpu_get() and a corresponding cpufreq_cpu_put() around access > > > > to the policy pointer. I think both methods are fine here. > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > cpufreq_get_policy() does an extra memcpy as well, which isn't required at all > > > in your case. > > > > > > -- > > > viresh > > > > Huha..Do you worry about the race conditon with cpufreq policy free path? > > No. I just worry about an unnecessary memcpy, nothing else. > Is there any question about this extra memcpy? Qiwu