Hi Viresh,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> 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 group of CPUs and create links for all
> present CPUs, i.e. CPU1 as well.
> - 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 addtion of the sysfs link and we will 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 to ensure that link
> gets added for the CPUs which weren't physically present earlier and
> that misses the case where a CPU is offline while registering the
> driver.
>
> To fix this properly, don't create these links when the policy get
> initialized. Rather wait for individual subsys callback for CPUs to
> add/remove these links. This simplifies most of the code leaving
> cpufreq_remove_dev().
>
> The problem is that, we might remove cpu which was owner of policy->kobj
> in sysfs, before other CPUs are removed. Fix this by the solution we
> have been using until very recently, in which we move the kobject to any
> other CPU, for which remove is yet to be called.
>
> Tested on dual core exynos board with cpufreq-dt driver. The driver was
> compiled as module and inserted/removed multiple times on a running
> kernel.
>
> Fixes: 87549141d516 ("cpufreq: Stop migrating sysfs files on hotplug")
> Reported-and-suggested-by: Russell King <li...@arm.linux.org.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
That looks good to me overall, but please let me rename your new
"symlinks" CPU mask to "dependent_cpus".
> ---
> V1->V2: Completely changed, please review again :)
>
> @Rafael: I didn't review your solution and gave this one because I
> thought Russell suggested the right thing. i.e. don't create links in
> the beginning.
Sure. I prefer this approach too.
> This is based of 4.2-rc3 and so your other patch,
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6839031/ has to be rebased over it.
OK
> I didn't rebase this patch over yours for two reasons:
> - Yours wasn't necessarily 4.2 material.
Right.
> - I already mentioned a problem in that patch.
I'm not sure if the problem is really there, but after the changes in
this patch it doesn't really matter. :-)
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/
