From: "Liao, Chang" <liaochang1@huawei.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Fix the race condition while updating the transition_task of policy
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 14:17:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b3c61d8a-d52d-3136-fbf0-d1de9f1ba411@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0iGikZ=JSA5Nyx5Dc4QunSC5BObNO5yzQh44UYjrtRKYg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi, Rafael
在 2023/8/28 16:58, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 10:52 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 28-08-23, 16:29, Liao, Chang wrote:
>>> Task B does not necessarily go to sleep when it calls wait_event(), it depends on
>>> the condition to wait for evaluate false or not. So there is a small race window
>>> where Task A already set 'transition_ongoing' to false and Task B can cross wait_event()
>>> immediately.
>>>
>>> wait_event:
>>> do {
>>> might_sleep();
>>> if (condition) // !transition_ongoing
>>> break;
>>> __wait_event();
>>> };
>>>
>>> I hope I do not miss something important in the code above.
>>
>>> Yes, if the CPU uses weak memroy model, it is possible for the instructions to be reordered.
>>> therefore, it is a good idea to insert an smb() between these two lines if there is race here.
>>
>> Maybe it would be better to do this instead ?
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index 6b52ebe5a890..f11b01b25e8d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -455,8 +455,10 @@ void cpufreq_freq_transition_end(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> policy->cur,
>> policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
>>
>> + spin_lock(&policy->transition_lock);
>> policy->transition_ongoing = false;
>> policy->transition_task = NULL;
>> + spin_unlock(&policy->transition_lock);
>>
>> wake_up(&policy->transition_wait);
>> }
>>
>> --
>
> I was about to suggest the same thing.
>
> wake_up() is a full memory barrier only if it actually wakes up a task
> and if it doesn't do that, without the locking the other task may see
> a state in which transition_ongoing is false already and
> transition_task is still NULL regardless of the relative ordering of
> the statements before the wake_up() call.
I agree, unless the transition_ongoing and transition_task fields are updated
atomically, there is always a window where inconsistency can occur in the policy
structure.
--
BR
Liao, Chang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-29 6:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-26 9:58 Liao Chang
2023-08-28 7:23 ` Viresh Kumar
2023-08-28 8:29 ` Liao, Chang
2023-08-28 8:52 ` Viresh Kumar
2023-08-28 8:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2023-08-29 6:17 ` Liao, Chang [this message]
2023-08-28 9:29 ` Liao, Chang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b3c61d8a-d52d-3136-fbf0-d1de9f1ba411@huawei.com \
--to=liaochang1@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®