Re: [PATCH v3] PM / devfreq: Fix devfreq_add_device() when drivers are built as modules.

[Enric Balletbo Serra]

Hi Chanwoo,

Any comments?

Just a gentle ping to make sure the parallel conversation regarding
the mutex didn't distract you :)

Missatge de l'adreÃa <akhilpo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> del dia dv., 22 de juny
2018 a les 23:22:
>
> On 2018-06-22 22:43, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > Hey Akhil,
> >
> > On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 12:33 +0530, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
> >> On 6/22/2018 6:41 AM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> >> > Hey Enric,
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 00:04 +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> >> > > When the devfreq driver and the governor driver are built as
> >> > > modules,
> >> > > the call to devfreq_add_device() or governor_store() fails
> >> > > because
> >> > > the
> >> > > governor driver is not loaded at the time the devfreq driver
> >> > > loads.
> >> > > The
> >> > > devfreq driver has a build dependency on the governor but also
> >> > > should
> >> > > have a runtime dependency. We need to make sure that the governor
> >> > > driver
> >> > > is loaded before the devfreq driver.
> >> > >
> >> > > This patch fixes this bug by adding a try_then_request_governor()
> >> > > function. First tries to find the governor, and then, if it is
> >> > > not
> >> > > found,
> >> > > it requests the module and tries again.
> >> > >
> >> > > Fixes: 1b5c1be2c88e (PM / devfreq: map devfreq drivers to
> >> > > governor
> >> > > using name)
> >> > > Signed-off-by: Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > om>
> >> > > ---
> >> > >
> >> > > Changes in v3:
> >> > > - Remove unneded change in dev_err message.
> >> > > - Fix err returned value in case to not find the governor.
> >> > >
> >> > > Changes in v2:
> >> > > - Add a new function to request the module and call that function
> >> > > from
> >> > >    devfreq_add_device and governor_store.
> >> > >
> >> > >   drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 65
> >> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >> > > --
> >> >
> >> > [snip snip]
> >> > > -        governor = find_devfreq_governor(devfreq-
> >> > > >governor_name);
> >> > > +        governor = try_then_request_governor(devfreq-
> >> > > > governor_name);
> >> > >
> >> > >          if (IS_ERR(governor)) {
> >> > >                  dev_err(dev, "%s: Unable to find governor for
> >> > > the
> >> > > device\n",
> >> > >                          __func__);
> >> > >                  err = PTR_ERR(governor);
> >> > > -                goto err_init;
> >> > > +                goto err_unregister;
> >> > >          }
> >> > >
> >> > > +        mutex_lock(&devfreq_list_lock);
> >> > > +
> >> >
> >> > I know it's not something we are introducing in this patch,
> >> > but still... calling a hook with a mutex held looks
> >> > fishy to me.
> >> >
> >> > This lock should only protect the list, unless I am missing
> >> > something.
> >> >
> >> > >          devfreq->governor = governor;
> >> > >          err = devfreq->governor->event_handler(devfreq,
> >> > > DEVFREQ_GOV_START,
> >> > >                                                  NULL);
> >> > > @@ -663,14 +703,16 @@ struct devfreq *devfreq_add_device(struct
> >> > > device *dev,
> >> > >                          __func__);
> >> > >                  goto err_init;
> >> > >          }
> >> > > +
> >> > > +        list_add(&devfreq->node, &devfreq_list);
> >> > > +
> >> > >          mutex_unlock(&devfreq_list_lock);
> >> > >
> >> > >          return devfreq;
> >> > >
> >> > >   err_init:
> >> > > -        list_del(&devfreq->node);
> >> > >          mutex_unlock(&devfreq_list_lock);
> >> > > -
> >> > > +err_unregister:
> >> > >          device_unregister(&devfreq->dev);
> >> > >   err_dev:
> >> > >          if (devfreq)
> >> > > @@ -988,12 +1030,13 @@ static ssize_t governor_store(struct
> >> > > device
> >> > > *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> >> > >          if (ret != 1)
> >> > >                  return -EINVAL;
> >> > >
> >> > > -        mutex_lock(&devfreq_list_lock);
> >> > > -        governor = find_devfreq_governor(str_governor);
> >> > > +        governor = try_then_request_governor(str_governor);
> >> > >          if (IS_ERR(governor)) {
> >> > > -                ret = PTR_ERR(governor);
> >> > > -                goto out;
> >> > > +                return PTR_ERR(governor);
> >> > >          }
> >> > > +
> >> > > +        mutex_lock(&devfreq_list_lock);
> >> > > +
> >> > >          if (df->governor == governor) {
> >> > >                  ret = 0;
> >> > >                  goto out;
> >> > > --
> >> > > 2.17.1
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Eze
> >>
> >> Adding to Ezequiel's point, shouldn't we take more granular lock
> >> (devfreq->lock) first and then call devfreq_list_lock at the time of
> >> adding to the list?
> >>
> >
> > Not sure why we should do that. devfreq->lock should be used to
> > protect the struct devfreq state, while the devfreq_list_lock
> > is apparently protecting the two lists (which seem unrelated
> > lists).
> >
> > So, the two locks are not correlated.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Eze
> In governor_store(), we do 'df->governor = governor;' without taking
> df->lock. So it is possible to switch governor while update_devfreq() is
> in progress. I smell trouble there. Don't you think so?
> I am assuming df->lock protects 'struct devfreq' and devfreq_list_lock
> protects both device and governor lists.
>
> -Akhil.