| Message ID | 1532456765-17576-3-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Delegated to: | Rafael Wysocki |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cpufreq: Fix a circular lock dependency problem | expand |
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index b0dfd32..1ddb5ce 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -923,7 +923,12 @@ static ssize_t store(struct kobject *kobj, struct attribute *attr, struct freq_attr *fattr = to_attr(attr); ssize_t ret = -EINVAL; - cpus_read_lock(); + /* + * cpus_read_trylock() is used here to work around a circular lock + * dependency problem with respect to the cpufreq_register_driver(). + */ + if (!cpus_read_trylock()) + return -EBUSY; if (cpu_online(policy->cpu)) { down_write(&policy->rwsem);
With lockdep turned on, the following circular lock dependency problem was reported: [ 57.470040] ====================================================== [ 57.502900] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected [ 57.535208] 4.18.0-0.rc3.1.el8+7.x86_64+debug #1 Tainted: G [ 57.577761] ------------------------------------------------------ [ 57.609714] tuned/1505 is trying to acquire lock: [ 57.633808] 00000000559deec5 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: store+0x27/0x120 [ 57.672880] [ 57.672880] but task is already holding lock: [ 57.702184] 000000002136ca64 (kn->count#118){++++}, at: kernfs_fop_write+0x1d0/0x410 [ 57.742176] [ 57.742176] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 57.742176] [ 57.785220] [ 57.785220] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: : [ 58.932512] other info that might help us debug this: [ 58.932512] [ 58.973344] Chain exists of: [ 58.973344] cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> subsys mutex#5 --> kn->count#118 [ 58.973344] [ 59.030795] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 59.030795] [ 59.061248] CPU0 CPU1 [ 59.085377] ---- ---- [ 59.108160] lock(kn->count#118); [ 59.124935] lock(subsys mutex#5); [ 59.156330] lock(kn->count#118); [ 59.186088] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem); [ 59.208541] [ 59.208541] *** DEADLOCK *** In the cpufreq_register_driver() function, the lock sequence is: cpus_read_lock --> kn->count For the cpufreq sysfs store method, the lock sequence is: kn->count --> cpus_read_lock These sequences are actually safe as they are taking a share lock on cpu_hotplug_lock. However, the current lockdep code doesn't check for share locking when detecting circular lock dependency. Fixing that could be a substantial effort. Instead, we can work around this problem by using cpus_read_trylock() in the store method which is much simpler. The chance of not getting the read lock is very small. If that happens, the userspace application that writes the sysfs file will get an error. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)