[PATCH] x86/hwmon: avoid deadlock on CPU removal in pkgtemp

[PATCH] x86/hwmon: avoid deadlock on CPU removal in pkgtemp

[Jan Beulich]

pkgtemp_device_remove(), holding the list protecting mutex, calls
pkgtemp_device_add(), which itself wants to acquire the same mutex.
Holding the mutex over the entire loop body in pkgtemp_device_remove()
isn't really necessary, as long as the loop gets exited after
processing the matched CPU.

Once exiting the loop after removing an eventual match, there's no
need for using the "safe" list iterator anymore.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>

---
 drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c |    7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- linux-2.6.36-rc4/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c	2010-09-13 08:45:03.000000000 +0200
+++ 2.6.36-rc4-x86-pkgtemp-remove-deadlock/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c	2010-09-03 17:54:30.000000000 +0200
@@ -339,17 +339,18 @@ exit:
 #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
 static void pkgtemp_device_remove(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	struct pdev_entry *p, *n;
+	struct pdev_entry *p;
 	unsigned int i;
 	int err;
 
 	mutex_lock(&pdev_list_mutex);
-	list_for_each_entry_safe(p, n, &pdev_list, list) {
+	list_for_each_entry(p, &pdev_list, list) {
 		if (p->cpu != cpu)
 			continue;
 
 		platform_device_unregister(p->pdev);
 		list_del(&p->list);
+		mutex_unlock(&pdev_list_mutex);
 		kfree(p);
 		for_each_cpu(i, cpu_core_mask(cpu)) {
 			if (i != cpu) {
@@ -358,7 +359,7 @@ static void pkgtemp_device_remove(unsign
 					break;
 			}
 		}
-		break;
+		return;
 	}
 	mutex_unlock(&pdev_list_mutex);
 }

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] x86/hwmon: avoid deadlock on CPU removal in

[Jan Beulich]

pkgtemp_device_remove(), holding the list protecting mutex, calls
pkgtemp_device_add(), which itself wants to acquire the same mutex.
Holding the mutex over the entire loop body in pkgtemp_device_remove()
isn't really necessary, as long as the loop gets exited after
processing the matched CPU.

Once exiting the loop after removing an eventual match, there's no
need for using the "safe" list iterator anymore.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>

---
 drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c |    7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- linux-2.6.36-rc4/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c	2010-09-13 08:45:03.000000000 +0200
+++ 2.6.36-rc4-x86-pkgtemp-remove-deadlock/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c	2010-09-03 17:54:30.000000000 +0200
@@ -339,17 +339,18 @@ exit:
 #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
 static void pkgtemp_device_remove(unsigned int cpu)
 {
-	struct pdev_entry *p, *n;
+	struct pdev_entry *p;
 	unsigned int i;
 	int err;
 
 	mutex_lock(&pdev_list_mutex);
-	list_for_each_entry_safe(p, n, &pdev_list, list) {
+	list_for_each_entry(p, &pdev_list, list) {
 		if (p->cpu != cpu)
 			continue;
 
 		platform_device_unregister(p->pdev);
 		list_del(&p->list);
+		mutex_unlock(&pdev_list_mutex);
 		kfree(p);
 		for_each_cpu(i, cpu_core_mask(cpu)) {
 			if (i != cpu) {
@@ -358,7 +359,7 @@ static void pkgtemp_device_remove(unsign
 					break;
 			}
 		}
-		break;
+		return;
 	}
 	mutex_unlock(&pdev_list_mutex);
 }




_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors

Re: [PATCH] x86/hwmon: avoid deadlock on CPU removal in pkgtemp

[Fenghua Yu]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 03:11:05AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> pkgtemp_device_remove(), holding the list protecting mutex, calls
> pkgtemp_device_add(), which itself wants to acquire the same mutex.
> Holding the mutex over the entire loop body in pkgtemp_device_remove()
> isn't really necessary, as long as the loop gets exited after
> processing the matched CPU.
> 
> Once exiting the loop after removing an eventual match, there's no
> need for using the "safe" list iterator anymore.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
> Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
> 
> ---
>  drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c |    7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> --- linux-2.6.36-rc4/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c	2010-09-13 08:45:03.000000000 +0200
> +++ 2.6.36-rc4-x86-pkgtemp-remove-deadlock/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c	2010-09-03 17:54:30.000000000 +0200
> @@ -339,17 +339,18 @@ exit:
>  #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
>  static void pkgtemp_device_remove(unsigned int cpu)

I already sent a  fix patch before. I'll push it to Linus.

Thanks.

-Fenghua

From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>

When a sibling is added to dev_list after a cpu is hot-removed, pdev_list_mutex
has been locked already. But pkgtemp_device_add() tries to lock pdev_list_mutex
again. This is incorrect. The patch fixes this issue.

The patch also removes __cpuinit for pkgtemp_device_add() to avoid section
mismatch warning.

Signed-off-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
---
 drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c |   18 +++++++++++++-----
 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c b/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c
index 74157fc..928a016 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c
@@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ struct pdev_entry {
 static LIST_HEAD(pdev_list);
 static DEFINE_MUTEX(pdev_list_mutex);
 
-static int __cpuinit pkgtemp_device_add(unsigned int cpu)
+static int pkgtemp_device_add(unsigned int cpu)
 {
 	int err;
 	struct platform_device *pdev;
@@ -341,26 +341,34 @@ static void pkgtemp_device_remove(unsigned int cpu)
 {
 	struct pdev_entry *p, *n;
 	unsigned int i;
-	int err;
 
-	mutex_lock(&pdev_list_mutex);
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(p, n, &pdev_list, list) {
 		if (p->cpu != cpu)
 			continue;
 
+		mutex_lock(&pdev_list_mutex);
 		platform_device_unregister(p->pdev);
 		list_del(&p->list);
 		kfree(p);
+		mutex_unlock(&pdev_list_mutex);
+		/*
+		 * Select one of removed cpu's siblings to represent sensor
+		 * for this package.
+		 * If there is no more running sibling in a package, the
+		 * package sensor for this package is not available to user
+		 * space any more.
+		 */
 		for_each_cpu(i, cpu_core_mask(cpu)) {
+			int err;
+
 			if (i != cpu) {
 				err = pkgtemp_device_add(i);
 				if (!err)
 					break;
 			}
 		}
-		break;
+		return;
 	}
-	mutex_unlock(&pdev_list_mutex);
 }
 
 static int __cpuinit pkgtemp_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
-- 
1.6.0.3

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] x86/hwmon: avoid deadlock on CPU removal

[Fenghua Yu]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 03:11:05AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> pkgtemp_device_remove(), holding the list protecting mutex, calls
> pkgtemp_device_add(), which itself wants to acquire the same mutex.
> Holding the mutex over the entire loop body in pkgtemp_device_remove()
> isn't really necessary, as long as the loop gets exited after
> processing the matched CPU.
> 
> Once exiting the loop after removing an eventual match, there's no
> need for using the "safe" list iterator anymore.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
> Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
> 
> ---
>  drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c |    7 ++++---
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> --- linux-2.6.36-rc4/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c	2010-09-13 08:45:03.000000000 +0200
> +++ 2.6.36-rc4-x86-pkgtemp-remove-deadlock/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c	2010-09-03 17:54:30.000000000 +0200
> @@ -339,17 +339,18 @@ exit:
>  #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
>  static void pkgtemp_device_remove(unsigned int cpu)

I already sent a  fix patch before. I'll push it to Linus.

Thanks.

-Fenghua

From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>

When a sibling is added to dev_list after a cpu is hot-removed, pdev_list_mutex
has been locked already. But pkgtemp_device_add() tries to lock pdev_list_mutex
again. This is incorrect. The patch fixes this issue.

The patch also removes __cpuinit for pkgtemp_device_add() to avoid section
mismatch warning.

Signed-off-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
---
 drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c |   18 +++++++++++++-----
 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c b/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c
index 74157fc..928a016 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c
@@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ struct pdev_entry {
 static LIST_HEAD(pdev_list);
 static DEFINE_MUTEX(pdev_list_mutex);
 
-static int __cpuinit pkgtemp_device_add(unsigned int cpu)
+static int pkgtemp_device_add(unsigned int cpu)
 {
 	int err;
 	struct platform_device *pdev;
@@ -341,26 +341,34 @@ static void pkgtemp_device_remove(unsigned int cpu)
 {
 	struct pdev_entry *p, *n;
 	unsigned int i;
-	int err;
 
-	mutex_lock(&pdev_list_mutex);
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(p, n, &pdev_list, list) {
 		if (p->cpu != cpu)
 			continue;
 
+		mutex_lock(&pdev_list_mutex);
 		platform_device_unregister(p->pdev);
 		list_del(&p->list);
 		kfree(p);
+		mutex_unlock(&pdev_list_mutex);
+		/*
+		 * Select one of removed cpu's siblings to represent sensor
+		 * for this package.
+		 * If there is no more running sibling in a package, the
+		 * package sensor for this package is not available to user
+		 * space any more.
+		 */
 		for_each_cpu(i, cpu_core_mask(cpu)) {
+			int err;
+
 			if (i != cpu) {
 				err = pkgtemp_device_add(i);
 				if (!err)
 					break;
 			}
 		}
-		break;
+		return;
 	}
-	mutex_unlock(&pdev_list_mutex);
 }
 
 static int __cpuinit pkgtemp_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
-- 
1.6.0.3


_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] x86/hwmon: avoid deadlock on CPU removal in pkgtemp

[Guenter Roeck]

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 08:13:00PM -0400, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 03:11:05AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > pkgtemp_device_remove(), holding the list protecting mutex, calls
> > pkgtemp_device_add(), which itself wants to acquire the same mutex.
> > Holding the mutex over the entire loop body in pkgtemp_device_remove()
> > isn't really necessary, as long as the loop gets exited after
> > processing the matched CPU.
> > 
> > Once exiting the loop after removing an eventual match, there's no
> > need for using the "safe" list iterator anymore.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
> > Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
> > 
> > ---
> >  drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c |    7 ++++---
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > --- linux-2.6.36-rc4/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c	2010-09-13 08:45:03.000000000 +0200
> > +++ 2.6.36-rc4-x86-pkgtemp-remove-deadlock/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c	2010-09-03 17:54:30.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -339,17 +339,18 @@ exit:
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> >  static void pkgtemp_device_remove(unsigned int cpu)
> 
> I already sent a  fix patch before. I'll push it to Linus.
> 
Guess it got lost. Re-sending it might have helped, or adding an Acked-by to this patch.

Guenter

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] x86/hwmon: avoid deadlock on CPU removal

[Guenter Roeck]

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 08:13:00PM -0400, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 03:11:05AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > pkgtemp_device_remove(), holding the list protecting mutex, calls
> > pkgtemp_device_add(), which itself wants to acquire the same mutex.
> > Holding the mutex over the entire loop body in pkgtemp_device_remove()
> > isn't really necessary, as long as the loop gets exited after
> > processing the matched CPU.
> > 
> > Once exiting the loop after removing an eventual match, there's no
> > need for using the "safe" list iterator anymore.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>
> > Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
> > 
> > ---
> >  drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c |    7 ++++---
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > --- linux-2.6.36-rc4/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c	2010-09-13 08:45:03.000000000 +0200
> > +++ 2.6.36-rc4-x86-pkgtemp-remove-deadlock/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c	2010-09-03 17:54:30.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -339,17 +339,18 @@ exit:
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> >  static void pkgtemp_device_remove(unsigned int cpu)
> 
> I already sent a  fix patch before. I'll push it to Linus.
> 
Guess it got lost. Re-sending it might have helped, or adding an Acked-by to this patch.

Guenter

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors

Re: [PATCH] x86/hwmon: avoid deadlock on CPU removal in pkgtemp

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 15.09.10 at 02:13, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com> wrote:
> From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
> 
> When a sibling is added to dev_list after a cpu is hot-removed, 
> pdev_list_mutex
> has been locked already. But pkgtemp_device_add() tries to lock 
> pdev_list_mutex
> again. This is incorrect. The patch fixes this issue.
> 
> The patch also removes __cpuinit for pkgtemp_device_add() to avoid section
> mismatch warning.

But that the wrong direction of a change - __cpuinit should be added
to pkgtemp_device_remove() instead.

> Signed-off-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c |   18 +++++++++++++-----
>  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c b/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c
> index 74157fc..928a016 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c
> @@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ struct pdev_entry {
>  static LIST_HEAD(pdev_list);
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(pdev_list_mutex);
>  
> -static int __cpuinit pkgtemp_device_add(unsigned int cpu)
> +static int pkgtemp_device_add(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	int err;
>  	struct platform_device *pdev;
> @@ -341,26 +341,34 @@ static void pkgtemp_device_remove(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	struct pdev_entry *p, *n;
>  	unsigned int i;
> -	int err;
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&pdev_list_mutex);
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(p, n, &pdev_list, list) {
>  		if (p->cpu != cpu)
>  			continue;
>  
> +		mutex_lock(&pdev_list_mutex);
>  		platform_device_unregister(p->pdev);
>  		list_del(&p->list);
>  		kfree(p);
> +		mutex_unlock(&pdev_list_mutex);

While probably not very important, it's nevertheless unclear why you
need to do the kfree() with the mutex held.

Jan

> +		/*
> +		 * Select one of removed cpu's siblings to represent sensor
> +		 * for this package.
> +		 * If there is no more running sibling in a package, the
> +		 * package sensor for this package is not available to user
> +		 * space any more.
> +		 */
>  		for_each_cpu(i, cpu_core_mask(cpu)) {
> +			int err;
> +
>  			if (i != cpu) {
>  				err = pkgtemp_device_add(i);
>  				if (!err)
>  					break;
>  			}
>  		}
> -		break;
> +		return;
>  	}
> -	mutex_unlock(&pdev_list_mutex);
>  }
>  
>  static int __cpuinit pkgtemp_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] x86/hwmon: avoid deadlock on CPU removal

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 15.09.10 at 02:13, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com> wrote:
> From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
> 
> When a sibling is added to dev_list after a cpu is hot-removed, 
> pdev_list_mutex
> has been locked already. But pkgtemp_device_add() tries to lock 
> pdev_list_mutex
> again. This is incorrect. The patch fixes this issue.
> 
> The patch also removes __cpuinit for pkgtemp_device_add() to avoid section
> mismatch warning.

But that the wrong direction of a change - __cpuinit should be added
to pkgtemp_device_remove() instead.

> Signed-off-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c |   18 +++++++++++++-----
>  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c b/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c
> index 74157fc..928a016 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/pkgtemp.c
> @@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ struct pdev_entry {
>  static LIST_HEAD(pdev_list);
>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(pdev_list_mutex);
>  
> -static int __cpuinit pkgtemp_device_add(unsigned int cpu)
> +static int pkgtemp_device_add(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	int err;
>  	struct platform_device *pdev;
> @@ -341,26 +341,34 @@ static void pkgtemp_device_remove(unsigned int cpu)
>  {
>  	struct pdev_entry *p, *n;
>  	unsigned int i;
> -	int err;
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&pdev_list_mutex);
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(p, n, &pdev_list, list) {
>  		if (p->cpu != cpu)
>  			continue;
>  
> +		mutex_lock(&pdev_list_mutex);
>  		platform_device_unregister(p->pdev);
>  		list_del(&p->list);
>  		kfree(p);
> +		mutex_unlock(&pdev_list_mutex);

While probably not very important, it's nevertheless unclear why you
need to do the kfree() with the mutex held.

Jan

> +		/*
> +		 * Select one of removed cpu's siblings to represent sensor
> +		 * for this package.
> +		 * If there is no more running sibling in a package, the
> +		 * package sensor for this package is not available to user
> +		 * space any more.
> +		 */
>  		for_each_cpu(i, cpu_core_mask(cpu)) {
> +			int err;
> +
>  			if (i != cpu) {
>  				err = pkgtemp_device_add(i);
>  				if (!err)
>  					break;
>  			}
>  		}
> -		break;
> +		return;
>  	}
> -	mutex_unlock(&pdev_list_mutex);
>  }
>  
>  static int __cpuinit pkgtemp_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,



_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors