From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 05:09:58 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: cpufreq: Drop rwsem lock around CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT
X-Git-Tag: v3.10-rc3~7^2^2~4
X-Git-Url: http://review.tizen.org/git/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=955ef4833574636819cd269cfbae12f79cbde63a;p=profile%2Fivi%2Fkernel-x86-ivi.git

cpufreq: Drop rwsem lock around CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT

With the rwsem lock around
__cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT), we
get circular dependency when we call sysfs_remove_group().

 ======================================================
 [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
 3.9.0-rc7+ #15 Not tainted
 -------------------------------------------------------
 cat/2387 is trying to acquire lock:
  (&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)){+++++.}, at: [<c02f6179>] lock_policy_rwsem_read+0x25/0x34

 but task is already holding lock:
  (s_active#41){++++.+}, at: [<c00f9bf7>] sysfs_read_file+0x4f/0xcc

 which lock already depends on the new lock.

 the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #1 (s_active#41){++++.+}:
        [<c0055a79>] lock_acquire+0x61/0xbc
        [<c00fabf1>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0xc1/0x128
        [<c00f9819>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x35/0x64
        [<c00fbe6f>] remove_files.isra.0+0x1b/0x24
        [<c00fbea5>] sysfs_remove_group+0x2d/0xa8
        [<c02f9a0b>] cpufreq_governor_interactive+0x13b/0x35c
        [<c02f61df>] __cpufreq_governor+0x2b/0x8c
        [<c02f6579>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0xa9/0xf8
        [<c02f6b75>] store_scaling_governor+0x61/0x100
        [<c02f6f4d>] store+0x39/0x60
        [<c00f9b81>] sysfs_write_file+0xed/0x114
        [<c00b3fd1>] vfs_write+0x65/0xd8
        [<c00b424b>] sys_write+0x2f/0x50
        [<c000cdc1>] ret_fast_syscall+0x1/0x52

-> #0 (&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)){+++++.}:
        [<c0055253>] __lock_acquire+0xef3/0x13dc
        [<c0055a79>] lock_acquire+0x61/0xbc
        [<c03ee1f5>] down_read+0x25/0x30
        [<c02f6179>] lock_policy_rwsem_read+0x25/0x34
        [<c02f6edd>] show+0x21/0x58
        [<c00f9c0f>] sysfs_read_file+0x67/0xcc
        [<c00b40a7>] vfs_read+0x63/0xd8
        [<c00b41fb>] sys_read+0x2f/0x50
        [<c000cdc1>] ret_fast_syscall+0x1/0x52

 other info that might help us debug this:

  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

        CPU0                    CPU1
        ----                    ----
   lock(s_active#41);
                                lock(&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu));
                                lock(s_active#41);
   lock(&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu));

  *** DEADLOCK ***

 2 locks held by cat/2387:
  #0:  (&buffer->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c00f9bcd>] sysfs_read_file+0x25/0xcc
  #1:  (s_active#41){++++.+}, at: [<c00f9bf7>] sysfs_read_file+0x4f/0xcc

 stack backtrace:
 [<c0011d55>] (unwind_backtrace+0x1/0x9c) from [<c03e9a09>] (print_circular_bug+0x19d/0x1e8)
 [<c03e9a09>] (print_circular_bug+0x19d/0x1e8) from [<c0055253>] (__lock_acquire+0xef3/0x13dc)
 [<c0055253>] (__lock_acquire+0xef3/0x13dc) from [<c0055a79>] (lock_acquire+0x61/0xbc)
 [<c0055a79>] (lock_acquire+0x61/0xbc) from [<c03ee1f5>] (down_read+0x25/0x30)
 [<c03ee1f5>] (down_read+0x25/0x30) from [<c02f6179>] (lock_policy_rwsem_read+0x25/0x34)
 [<c02f6179>] (lock_policy_rwsem_read+0x25/0x34) from [<c02f6edd>] (show+0x21/0x58)
 [<c02f6edd>] (show+0x21/0x58) from [<c00f9c0f>] (sysfs_read_file+0x67/0xcc)
 [<c00f9c0f>] (sysfs_read_file+0x67/0xcc) from [<c00b40a7>] (vfs_read+0x63/0xd8)
 [<c00b40a7>] (vfs_read+0x63/0xd8) from [<c00b41fb>] (sys_read+0x2f/0x50)
 [<c00b41fb>] (sys_read+0x2f/0x50) from [<c000cdc1>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x1/0x52)

This lock isn't required while calling __cpufreq_governor(policy,
CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT). Remove it.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
---

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 4b8c7f2..2d53f47 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1729,18 +1729,23 @@ static int __cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *data,
 			/* end old governor */
 			if (data->governor) {
 				__cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
+				unlock_policy_rwsem_write(policy->cpu);
 				__cpufreq_governor(data,
 						CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT);
+				lock_policy_rwsem_write(policy->cpu);
 			}
 
 			/* start new governor */
 			data->governor = policy->governor;
 			if (!__cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT)) {
-				if (!__cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_START))
+				if (!__cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_START)) {
 					failed = 0;
-				else
+				} else {
+					unlock_policy_rwsem_write(policy->cpu);
 					__cpufreq_governor(data,
 							CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT);
+					lock_policy_rwsem_write(policy->cpu);
+				}
 			}
 
 			if (failed) {