Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V7] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle injection framework | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Date | Mon, 18 Jun 2018 12:35:59 +0200 |
| |
On 18/06/2018 12:22, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 15-06-18, 11:19, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> +/** >> + * idle_injection_stop - stops the idle injections >> + * @ii_dev: a pointer to an idle injection_device structure >> + * >> + * The function stops the idle injection and waits for the threads to >> + * complete. If we are in the process of injecting an idle cycle, then >> + * this will wait the end of the cycle. >> + * >> + * When the function returns there is no more idle injection >> + * activity. The kthreads are scheduled out and the periodic timer is >> + * off. >> + */ >> +void idle_injection_stop(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev) >> +{ >> + struct idle_injection_thread *iit; >> + unsigned int cpu; >> + >> + pr_debug("Stopping injecting idle cycles on CPUs '%*pbl'\n", >> + cpumask_pr_args(to_cpumask(ii_dev->cpumask))); >> + >> + hrtimer_cancel(&ii_dev->timer); >> + >> + /* >> + * We want the guarantee we have a quescient point where >> + * parked threads stay in there state while we are stopping >> + * the idle injection. After exiting the loop, if any CPU is >> + * plugged in, the 'should_run' boolean being false, the >> + * smpboot main loop schedules the task out. >> + */ >> + cpu_hotplug_disable(); >> + >> + for_each_cpu_and(cpu, to_cpumask(ii_dev->cpumask), cpu_online_mask) { > > Maybe you should do below for all CPUs in the mask. Is the below usecase > possible ? > > - CPU0-4 are part of the mask and are all online. > - hrtimer fires and sets should_run for all of them to 1.
^^ hrtimer_cancel gives you the guarantee, the timer is no longer active and there is no execution in the timer handler. So the timer can no longer fire after hrtimer_cancel() is called (which is a blocking call).
> - Right at this time CPU3 goes offline, so the thread gets parked with > should_run == 1. Is there a reason why this can't happen ? > - Now we unregister the stuff and CPU3 again comes online. > - Because it had should_run as true, we again run the thread and Crash. > > makes sense ?
>> + iit = per_cpu_ptr(&idle_injection_thread, cpu); >> + iit->should_run = 0; >> + >> + wait_task_inactive(iit->tsk, 0); > > I am not very sure of what guarantees this will provide.
We get the guarantee any idle injection cycle is ended.
> @Peter: Do you see any more race scenarios here ? > >> + } >> + >> + cpu_hotplug_enable(); >> +} > >> +struct idle_injection_device *idle_injection_register(struct cpumask *cpumask) >> +{ >> + struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev; >> + int cpu; >> + >> + ii_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*ii_dev) + cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (!ii_dev) >> + return NULL; >> + >> + cpumask_copy(to_cpumask(ii_dev->cpumask), cpumask); >> + hrtimer_init(&ii_dev->timer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL); >> + ii_dev->timer.function = idle_injection_wakeup_fn; >> + >> + for_each_cpu(cpu, to_cpumask(ii_dev->cpumask)) { >> + >> + if (per_cpu(idle_injection_device, cpu)) { >> + pr_err("cpu%d is already registered\n", cpu); >> + goto out_rollback_per_cpu; >> + } >> + >> + per_cpu(idle_injection_device, cpu) = ii_dev; >> + } >> + >> + return ii_dev; >> + >> +out_rollback_per_cpu: >> + for_each_cpu(cpu, to_cpumask(ii_dev->cpumask)) >> + per_cpu(idle_injection_device, cpu) = NULL; > > So if two parts of the kernel call this routine with the same cpumask, then the > second call will also overwrite the masks with NULL and return error. That will > screw up things a bit here.
Apparently there is a misunderstanding :)
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/29/209 (at the end)
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
| |