[CPUFREQ] Fix ondemand vs suspend deadlock
Rootcaused the bug to a deadlock in cpufreq and ondemand. Due to non-existent
ordering between cpu_hotplug lock and dbs_mutex. Basically a race condition
between cpu_down() and do_dbs_timer().
cpu_down() flow:
* cpu_down() call for CPU 1
* Takes hot plug lock
* Calls pre down notifier
* cpufreq notifier handler calls cpufreq_driver_target() which takes
cpu_hotplug lock again. OK as cpu_hotplug lock is recursive in same
process context
* CPU 1 goes down
* Calls post down notifier
* cpufreq notifier handler calls ondemand event stop which takes dbs_mutex
So, cpu_hotplug lock is taken before dbs_mutex in this flow.
do_dbs_timer is triggerred by a periodic timer event.
It first takes dbs_mutex and then takes cpu_hotplug lock in
cpufreq_driver_target().
Note the reverse order here compared to above. So, if this timer event happens
at right moment during cpu_down, system will deadlok.
Attached patch fixes the issue for both ondemand and conservative.
Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
index e07a354..8878a15 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
@@ -72,6 +72,14 @@
static unsigned int dbs_enable; /* number of CPUs using this policy */
+/*
+ * DEADLOCK ALERT! There is a ordering requirement between cpu_hotplug
+ * lock and dbs_mutex. cpu_hotplug lock should always be held before
+ * dbs_mutex. If any function that can potentially take cpu_hotplug lock
+ * (like __cpufreq_driver_target()) is being called with dbs_mutex taken, then
+ * cpu_hotplug lock should be taken before that. Note that cpu_hotplug lock
+ * is recursive for the same process. -Venki
+ */
static DEFINE_MUTEX (dbs_mutex);
static DECLARE_WORK (dbs_work, do_dbs_timer, NULL);
@@ -414,12 +422,14 @@
static void do_dbs_timer(void *data)
{
int i;
+ lock_cpu_hotplug();
mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
for_each_online_cpu(i)
dbs_check_cpu(i);
schedule_delayed_work(&dbs_work,
usecs_to_jiffies(dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate));
mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
+ unlock_cpu_hotplug();
}
static inline void dbs_timer_init(void)
@@ -514,6 +524,7 @@
break;
case CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS:
+ lock_cpu_hotplug();
mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
if (policy->max < this_dbs_info->cur_policy->cur)
__cpufreq_driver_target(
@@ -524,6 +535,7 @@
this_dbs_info->cur_policy,
policy->min, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
+ unlock_cpu_hotplug();
break;
}
return 0;
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
index 3e6ffca..4d30841 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
@@ -71,6 +71,14 @@
static unsigned int dbs_enable; /* number of CPUs using this policy */
+/*
+ * DEADLOCK ALERT! There is a ordering requirement between cpu_hotplug
+ * lock and dbs_mutex. cpu_hotplug lock should always be held before
+ * dbs_mutex. If any function that can potentially take cpu_hotplug lock
+ * (like __cpufreq_driver_target()) is being called with dbs_mutex taken, then
+ * cpu_hotplug lock should be taken before that. Note that cpu_hotplug lock
+ * is recursive for the same process. -Venki
+ */
static DEFINE_MUTEX (dbs_mutex);
static DECLARE_WORK (dbs_work, do_dbs_timer, NULL);
@@ -363,12 +371,14 @@
static void do_dbs_timer(void *data)
{
int i;
+ lock_cpu_hotplug();
mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
for_each_online_cpu(i)
dbs_check_cpu(i);
queue_delayed_work(dbs_workq, &dbs_work,
usecs_to_jiffies(dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate));
mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
+ unlock_cpu_hotplug();
}
static inline void dbs_timer_init(void)
@@ -469,6 +479,7 @@
break;
case CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS:
+ lock_cpu_hotplug();
mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
if (policy->max < this_dbs_info->cur_policy->cur)
__cpufreq_driver_target(
@@ -479,6 +490,7 @@
this_dbs_info->cur_policy,
policy->min, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
+ unlock_cpu_hotplug();
break;
}
return 0;
