Hi Russell, On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 03:17:10PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> Consider a dual core (0/1) system with two CPUs: >> - sharing clock/voltage rails and hence cpufreq-policy >> - CPU1 is offline while the cpufreq driver is registered >> >> - cpufreq_add_dev() is called from subsys callback for CPU0 and we >> create the policy for the CPUs and create link for CPU1. >> - cpufreq_add_dev() is called from subsys callback for CPU1, we find >> that the cpu is offline and we try to create a sysfs link for CPU1. >> - This results in double addition of the sysfs link and we get this: >> >> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at fs/sysfs/dir.c:31 sysfs_warn_dup+0x60/0x7c() >> sysfs: cannot create duplicate filename >> '/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq' >> Modules linked in: >> CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.2.0-rc2+ #1704 >> Hardware name: Freescale i.MX6 Quad/DualLite (Device Tree) >> Backtrace: >> [<c0013248>] (dump_backtrace) from [<c00133e4>] (show_stack+0x18/0x1c) >> r6:c01a1f30 r5:0000001f r4:00000000 r3:00000000 >> [<c00133cc>] (show_stack) from [<c076920c>] (dump_stack+0x7c/0x98) >> [<c0769190>] (dump_stack) from [<c0029ab4>] >> (warn_slowpath_common+0x80/0xbc) >> r4:d74abbd0 r3:d74c0000 >> [<c0029a34>] (warn_slowpath_common) from [<c0029b94>] >> (warn_slowpath_fmt+0x38/0x40) >> r8:ffffffef r7:00000000 r6:d75a8960 r5:c0993280 r4:d6b4d000 >> [<c0029b60>] (warn_slowpath_fmt) from [<c01a1f30>] >> (sysfs_warn_dup+0x60/0x7c) >> r3:d6b4dfe7 r2:c0930750 >> [<c01a1ed0>] (sysfs_warn_dup) from [<c01a22c8>] >> (sysfs_do_create_link_sd+0xb8/0xc0) >> r6:d75a8960 r5:c0993280 r4:d00aba20 >> [<c01a2210>] (sysfs_do_create_link_sd) from [<c01a22fc>] >> (sysfs_create_link+0x2c/0x3c) >> r10:00000001 r8:c14db3c8 r7:d7b89010 r6:c0ae7c60 r5:d7b89010 >> r4:d00d1200 >> [<c01a22d0>] (sysfs_create_link) from [<c0506160>] >> (add_cpu_dev_symlink+0x34/0x5c) >> [<c050612c>] (add_cpu_dev_symlink) from [<c05084d0>] >> (cpufreq_add_dev+0x674/0x794) >> r5:00000001 r4:00000000 >> [<c0507e5c>] (cpufreq_add_dev) from [<c03db114>] >> (subsys_interface_register+0x8c/0xd0) >> r10:00000003 r9:d7bb01f0 r8:c14db3c8 r7:00106738 r6:c0ae7c60 >> r5:c0acbd08 >> r4:c0ae7e20 >> [<c03db088>] (subsys_interface_register) from [<c0508a2c>] >> (cpufreq_register_driver+0x104/0x1f4) >> >> >> The check for offline-cpu in cpufreq_add_dev() is present to ensure that >> link gets added for the CPUs, that weren't physically present earlier >> and we missed the case where a CPU is offline while registering the >> driver. >> >> Fix this by keeping track of CPUs for which link is already created, and >> avoiding duplicate sysfs entries. > > Why do we try to create the symlink for CPU devices which we haven't > "detected" yet (iow, we haven't had cpufreq_add_dev() called for)? > Surely we are guaranteed to have cpufreq_add_dev() called for every > CPU which exists in sysfs? So why not _only_ create the sysfs symlinks > when cpufreq_add_dev() is notified that a CPU subsys interface is > present?
That's something I've overlooked. Yes, we should be doing exactly that. > Sure, if the policy changes, we need to do maintanence on these symlinks, > but I see only one path down into cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(), which is: > > cpufreq_add_dev() -> cpufreq_add_dev_interface() -> > cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() > > In other words, only when we see a new CPU interface appears, not when > the policy changes. If the set of related CPUs is policy independent, > why is this information carried in the cpufreq_policy struct? It is not policy-dependent, but the way that information is gathered is not exactly straightforward. It generally depends on what the platform firmware tells us about the topology. > If it is policy dependent, then I see no code which handles the effect > of a policy change where the policy->related_cpus is different. To me, > that sounds like a rather huge design hole. > > Things get worse. Reading drivers/base/cpu.c, CPU interface nodes are > only ever created - they're created for the set of _possible_ CPUs in > the system, not those which are possible and present, and there is no > unregister_cpu() API, only a register_cpu() API. There is unregister_cpu() API too, but it is called from arch_unregister_cpu(). And it calls device_unregister() and all of the appropriate things happen AFAICS. Eventually, cpufreq_remove_dev() is called from that path. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
