On wo, 2015-08-05 at 14:16 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-31-07 at 12:08:58 UTC, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > windfarm_corex_exit() contains:
> > BUG_ON(wf_client_count != 0);
> >
> > I wonder why that, apparently. never triggered.
>
> Hmm interesting.
>
> A quick test here on an iMacG5 shows that we get into a state where we can't
> remove windfarm_core:
>
> $ lsmod
> Module Size Used by
> windfarm_smu_sensors 7549 2
> windfarm_core 15391 1 windfarm_smu_sensors
>
>
> Which means we can't trigger windfarm_core_exit() and the BUG_ON().
Perhaps this is what, roughly, happens:
smu_sensors_init()
smu_ads_create()
/* Let's assume this happens ... */
ads->sens.ops = &smu_cpuamp_ops
ads->sens.name = "cpu-current"
smu_ads_create()
/* ditto ... */
ads->sens.ops = &smu_cpuvolt_ops
ads->sens.name = "cpu-voltage"
/* ... so this would then be true */
if (volt_sensor && curr_sensor)
/* and we do this */
smu_cpu_power_create(&volt_sensor->sens, &curr_sensor->sens)
wf_get_sensor(&volt_sensor->sens)
try_module_get(volt_sensor->sens->ops->owner /* THIS_MODULE */)
wf_get_sensor(&curr_sensor->sens)
try_module_get(curr_sensor->sens->ops->owner /* THIS_MODULE */)
The cleanup would have happened here:
smu_sensors_exit()
while (!list_empty(&smu_ads)
wf_unregister_sensor(&ads->sens)
wf_put_sensor()
/* would this also be done for sensors that never
* triggered a call to module_get()? */
module_put(ads->sens->ops->owner /* THIS MODULE */)
But, whatever it is that smu_sensors_exit() wants to do, it will never
be called since there are these two references to this module that
smu_sensors_init() created itself, preventing the unloading of this
module.
Does the above look plausible?
Note that this was only cobbled together by staring at the code for far
too long. If I had some powerpc machine at hand I could have actually
tested this with a few strategically placed printk()'s.
> I also get an oops when removing windfarm_lm75_sensor, so I suspect there are
> gremlins in the module ref counting for windfarm.
(This I haven't (yet) looked into.)
> I'll merge this as probably correct.
Hope this helps,
Paul Bolle
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
