Re: [PATCH Resend] cpufreq: Set cpufreq_cpu_data to NULL before putting kobject

[ethan zhao]

On 2015/2/2 12:26, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 2 February 2015 at 09:46, ethan zhao <ethan.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   We am talking about the policy allocation and de-allocation. right ?
> >   I showed you the cpufreq_policy_free(policy) doesn't check kobject
> >   refcount  as above.
> >
> >   Hmmm, you are still sleeping in the kobject, wake up and don't mix
> >   water anymore.
> It would be nice if we give each other the respect we deserve, And talk
> about concrete points here.
 Welcome back to the right way.
> > > if (!cpufreq_suspended)
> > >           cpufreq_policy_put_kobj(policy);
> > >
> > > static void cpufreq_policy_put_kobj(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > > {
> > >           ...
> > >
> > >           kobject_put(kobj);
> > >
> > >           /*
> > >           * We need to make sure that the underlying kobj is
> > >           * actually not referenced anymore by anybody before we
> > >           * proceed with unloading.
> > >           */
> > >           pr_debug("waiting for dropping of refcount\n");
> > >           wait_for_completion(cmp);
> > > }
> I gave you exactly what you wanted to go through, but it seems you
> haven't tried enough.
>
> Before freeing policy with cpufreq_policy_free(), we call
> cpufreq_policy_put_kobj(). Now what does this function do? It waits
> for the completion to fire (wait_for_completion()). This completion
> will only fire when refcount of a kobject becomes zero.
>
> Initially when we create the kobject, it is initialized to one. And the
> last kobject_put() you see above in cpufreq_policy_put_kobj()
> makes it zero. All other cpufreq_cpu_get() and put() should happen
> in pairs, otherwise this refcount will never be zero again.
>
> As soon as the refcount becomes zero, we are sure no one else is
> using the policy structure anymore. And so we free it with
> cpufreq_policy_free().
 But there is no checking against refcount in or before

 cpufreq_policy_free(), that is one issue I mentioned.

> That routines doesn't have any tricks and simply frees the policy.
> Because, before calling cpufreq_policy_put_kobj(), we have set
> the per-cpu variable to NULL, nobody else will get the policy
 It is possible cpufreq_cpu_get() within the PPC thread was called just
 before __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish() is to be called in another thread,
 so you set the per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu) to NULL will not prevent
 the actions between cpufreq_cpu_get and cpufreq_cpu_put().

 And then the freeing happens in __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish().
> structure by calling cpufreq_cpu_get(). And that's what my patch
> tried to solve.
>
> Let me know if I wasn't explanatory enough..

Ethan
> --
> viresh

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/