ACPI: thermal: Do not call acpi_thermal_check() directly
diff mbox series

Message ID 3391226.KRKnzuvfpg@kreacher
State Accepted
Commit 81b704d3e4674e09781d331df73d76675d5ad8cb
Headers show
Series
  • ACPI: thermal: Do not call acpi_thermal_check() directly
Related show

Commit Message

Rafael J. Wysocki Jan. 14, 2021, 6:34 p.m. UTC
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Calling acpi_thermal_check() from acpi_thermal_notify() directly
is problematic if _TMP triggers Notify () on the thermal zone for
which it has been evaluated (which happens on some systems), because
it causes a new acpi_thermal_notify() invocation to be queued up
every time and if that takes place too often, an indefinite number of
pending work items may accumulate in kacpi_notify_wq over time.

Besides, it is not really useful to queue up a new invocation of
acpi_thermal_check() if one of them is pending already.

For these reasons, rework acpi_thermal_notify() to queue up a thermal
check instead of calling acpi_thermal_check() directly and only allow
one thermal check to be pending at a time.  Moreover, only allow one
acpi_thermal_check_fn() instance at a time to run
thermal_zone_device_update() for one thermal zone and make it return
early if it sees other instances running for the same thermal zone.

While at it, fold acpi_thermal_check() into acpi_thermal_check_fn(),
as it is only called from there after the other changes made here.

BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208877
Reported-by: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net> 
Diagnosed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/thermal.c |   46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

Comments

Rafael J. Wysocki Jan. 22, 2021, 4:23 p.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 7:35 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> Calling acpi_thermal_check() from acpi_thermal_notify() directly
> is problematic if _TMP triggers Notify () on the thermal zone for
> which it has been evaluated (which happens on some systems), because
> it causes a new acpi_thermal_notify() invocation to be queued up
> every time and if that takes place too often, an indefinite number of
> pending work items may accumulate in kacpi_notify_wq over time.
>
> Besides, it is not really useful to queue up a new invocation of
> acpi_thermal_check() if one of them is pending already.
>
> For these reasons, rework acpi_thermal_notify() to queue up a thermal
> check instead of calling acpi_thermal_check() directly and only allow
> one thermal check to be pending at a time.  Moreover, only allow one
> acpi_thermal_check_fn() instance at a time to run
> thermal_zone_device_update() for one thermal zone and make it return
> early if it sees other instances running for the same thermal zone.
>
> While at it, fold acpi_thermal_check() into acpi_thermal_check_fn(),
> as it is only called from there after the other changes made here.
>
> BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208877
> Reported-by: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net>
> Diagnosed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Well, it's been over a week since this was posted.

Does anyone have any comments?

> ---
>  drivers/acpi/thermal.c |   46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> @@ -174,6 +174,8 @@ struct acpi_thermal {
>         struct thermal_zone_device *thermal_zone;
>         int kelvin_offset;      /* in millidegrees */
>         struct work_struct thermal_check_work;
> +       struct mutex thermal_check_lock;
> +       refcount_t thermal_check_count;
>  };
>
>  /* --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> @@ -495,14 +497,6 @@ static int acpi_thermal_get_trip_points(
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> -static void acpi_thermal_check(void *data)
> -{
> -       struct acpi_thermal *tz = data;
> -
> -       thermal_zone_device_update(tz->thermal_zone,
> -                                  THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
> -}
> -
>  /* sys I/F for generic thermal sysfs support */
>
>  static int thermal_get_temp(struct thermal_zone_device *thermal, int *temp)
> @@ -900,6 +894,12 @@ static void acpi_thermal_unregister_ther
>                                   Driver Interface
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
>
> +static void acpi_queue_thermal_check(struct acpi_thermal *tz)
> +{
> +       if (!work_pending(&tz->thermal_check_work))
> +               queue_work(acpi_thermal_pm_queue, &tz->thermal_check_work);
> +}
> +
>  static void acpi_thermal_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
>  {
>         struct acpi_thermal *tz = acpi_driver_data(device);
> @@ -910,17 +910,17 @@ static void acpi_thermal_notify(struct a
>
>         switch (event) {
>         case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_TEMPERATURE:
> -               acpi_thermal_check(tz);
> +               acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
>                 break;
>         case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_THRESHOLDS:
>                 acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS);
> -               acpi_thermal_check(tz);
> +               acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
>                 acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
>                                                   dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
>                 break;
>         case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_DEVICES:
>                 acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES);
> -               acpi_thermal_check(tz);
> +               acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
>                 acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
>                                                   dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
>                 break;
> @@ -1020,7 +1020,25 @@ static void acpi_thermal_check_fn(struct
>  {
>         struct acpi_thermal *tz = container_of(work, struct acpi_thermal,
>                                                thermal_check_work);
> -       acpi_thermal_check(tz);
> +
> +       /*
> +        * In general, it is not sufficient to check the pending bit, because
> +        * subsequent instances of this function may be queued after one of them
> +        * has started running (e.g. if _TMP sleeps).  Avoid bailing out if just
> +        * one of them is running, though, because it may have done the actual
> +        * check some time ago, so allow at least one of them to block on the
> +        * mutex while another one is running the update.
> +        */
> +       if (!refcount_dec_not_one(&tz->thermal_check_count))
> +               return;
> +
> +       mutex_lock(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
> +
> +       thermal_zone_device_update(tz->thermal_zone, THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
> +
> +       refcount_inc(&tz->thermal_check_count);
> +
> +       mutex_unlock(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
>  }
>
>  static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device)
> @@ -1052,6 +1070,8 @@ static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_
>         if (result)
>                 goto free_memory;
>
> +       refcount_set(&tz->thermal_check_count, 3);
> +       mutex_init(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
>         INIT_WORK(&tz->thermal_check_work, acpi_thermal_check_fn);
>
>         pr_info(PREFIX "%s [%s] (%ld C)\n", acpi_device_name(device),
> @@ -1117,7 +1137,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_resume(struct de
>                 tz->state.active |= tz->trips.active[i].flags.enabled;
>         }
>
> -       queue_work(acpi_thermal_pm_queue, &tz->thermal_check_work);
> +       acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
>
>         return AE_OK;
>  }
>
>
>
Stephen Berman Jan. 22, 2021, 4:39 p.m. UTC | #2
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 17:23:36 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 7:35 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>>
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>>
>> Calling acpi_thermal_check() from acpi_thermal_notify() directly
>> is problematic if _TMP triggers Notify () on the thermal zone for
>> which it has been evaluated (which happens on some systems), because
>> it causes a new acpi_thermal_notify() invocation to be queued up
>> every time and if that takes place too often, an indefinite number of
>> pending work items may accumulate in kacpi_notify_wq over time.
>>
>> Besides, it is not really useful to queue up a new invocation of
>> acpi_thermal_check() if one of them is pending already.
>>
>> For these reasons, rework acpi_thermal_notify() to queue up a thermal
>> check instead of calling acpi_thermal_check() directly and only allow
>> one thermal check to be pending at a time.  Moreover, only allow one
>> acpi_thermal_check_fn() instance at a time to run
>> thermal_zone_device_update() for one thermal zone and make it return
>> early if it sees other instances running for the same thermal zone.
>>
>> While at it, fold acpi_thermal_check() into acpi_thermal_check_fn(),
>> as it is only called from there after the other changes made here.
>>
>> BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208877
>> Reported-by: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net>
>> Diagnosed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> Well, it's been over a week since this was posted.
>
> Does anyone have any comments?

Sorry, I haven't been able to make time to test the patch yet, but I'll
try to do so this weekend.  Is it just the patch below that I should
apply, ignoring the previous patches you sent?  And can I apply it to
the current mainline kernel?

Thanks,
Steve Berman

>> ---
>>  drivers/acpi/thermal.c |   46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
>> @@ -174,6 +174,8 @@ struct acpi_thermal {
>>         struct thermal_zone_device *thermal_zone;
>>         int kelvin_offset;      /* in millidegrees */
>>         struct work_struct thermal_check_work;
>> +       struct mutex thermal_check_lock;
>> +       refcount_t thermal_check_count;
>>  };
>>
>>  /* --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> @@ -495,14 +497,6 @@ static int acpi_thermal_get_trip_points(
>>         return 0;
>>  }
>>
>> -static void acpi_thermal_check(void *data)
>> -{
>> -       struct acpi_thermal *tz = data;
>> -
>> -       thermal_zone_device_update(tz->thermal_zone,
>> -                                  THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
>> -}
>> -
>>  /* sys I/F for generic thermal sysfs support */
>>
>>  static int thermal_get_temp(struct thermal_zone_device *thermal, int *temp)
>> @@ -900,6 +894,12 @@ static void acpi_thermal_unregister_ther
>>                                   Driver Interface
>>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
>>
>> +static void acpi_queue_thermal_check(struct acpi_thermal *tz)
>> +{
>> +       if (!work_pending(&tz->thermal_check_work))
>> +               queue_work(acpi_thermal_pm_queue, &tz->thermal_check_work);
>> +}
>> +
>>  static void acpi_thermal_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
>>  {
>>         struct acpi_thermal *tz = acpi_driver_data(device);
>> @@ -910,17 +910,17 @@ static void acpi_thermal_notify(struct a
>>
>>         switch (event) {
>>         case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_TEMPERATURE:
>> -               acpi_thermal_check(tz);
>> +               acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
>>                 break;
>>         case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_THRESHOLDS:
>>                 acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS);
>> -               acpi_thermal_check(tz);
>> +               acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
>>                 acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
>>                                                   dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
>>                 break;
>>         case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_DEVICES:
>>                 acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES);
>> -               acpi_thermal_check(tz);
>> +               acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
>>                 acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
>>                                                   dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
>>                 break;
>> @@ -1020,7 +1020,25 @@ static void acpi_thermal_check_fn(struct
>>  {
>>         struct acpi_thermal *tz = container_of(work, struct acpi_thermal,
>>                                                thermal_check_work);
>> -       acpi_thermal_check(tz);
>> +
>> +       /*
>> +        * In general, it is not sufficient to check the pending bit, because
>> +        * subsequent instances of this function may be queued after one of them
>> +        * has started running (e.g. if _TMP sleeps).  Avoid bailing out if just
>> +        * one of them is running, though, because it may have done the actual
>> +        * check some time ago, so allow at least one of them to block on the
>> +        * mutex while another one is running the update.
>> +        */
>> +       if (!refcount_dec_not_one(&tz->thermal_check_count))
>> +               return;
>> +
>> +       mutex_lock(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
>> +
>> +       thermal_zone_device_update(tz->thermal_zone, THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
>> +
>> +       refcount_inc(&tz->thermal_check_count);
>> +
>> +       mutex_unlock(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
>>  }
>>
>>  static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device)
>> @@ -1052,6 +1070,8 @@ static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_
>>         if (result)
>>                 goto free_memory;
>>
>> +       refcount_set(&tz->thermal_check_count, 3);
>> +       mutex_init(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
>>         INIT_WORK(&tz->thermal_check_work, acpi_thermal_check_fn);
>>
>>         pr_info(PREFIX "%s [%s] (%ld C)\n", acpi_device_name(device),
>> @@ -1117,7 +1137,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_resume(struct de
>>                 tz->state.active |= tz->trips.active[i].flags.enabled;
>>         }
>>
>> -       queue_work(acpi_thermal_pm_queue, &tz->thermal_check_work);
>> +       acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
>>
>>         return AE_OK;
>>  }
>>
>>
>>
Rafael J. Wysocki Jan. 22, 2021, 4:42 p.m. UTC | #3
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 5:39 PM Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 17:23:36 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 7:35 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >>
> >> Calling acpi_thermal_check() from acpi_thermal_notify() directly
> >> is problematic if _TMP triggers Notify () on the thermal zone for
> >> which it has been evaluated (which happens on some systems), because
> >> it causes a new acpi_thermal_notify() invocation to be queued up
> >> every time and if that takes place too often, an indefinite number of
> >> pending work items may accumulate in kacpi_notify_wq over time.
> >>
> >> Besides, it is not really useful to queue up a new invocation of
> >> acpi_thermal_check() if one of them is pending already.
> >>
> >> For these reasons, rework acpi_thermal_notify() to queue up a thermal
> >> check instead of calling acpi_thermal_check() directly and only allow
> >> one thermal check to be pending at a time.  Moreover, only allow one
> >> acpi_thermal_check_fn() instance at a time to run
> >> thermal_zone_device_update() for one thermal zone and make it return
> >> early if it sees other instances running for the same thermal zone.
> >>
> >> While at it, fold acpi_thermal_check() into acpi_thermal_check_fn(),
> >> as it is only called from there after the other changes made here.
> >>
> >> BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208877
> >> Reported-by: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net>
> >> Diagnosed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >
> > Well, it's been over a week since this was posted.
> >
> > Does anyone have any comments?
>
> Sorry, I haven't been able to make time to test the patch yet, but I'll
> try to do so this weekend.  Is it just the patch below that I should
> apply, ignoring the previous patches you sent?

Yes.

> And can I apply it to the current mainline kernel?

Yes, it should be applicable to the current mainline (at least as of 5.11-rc4).

Thanks!

> >> ---
> >>  drivers/acpi/thermal.c |   46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> >> ===================================================================
> >> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> >> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
> >> @@ -174,6 +174,8 @@ struct acpi_thermal {
> >>         struct thermal_zone_device *thermal_zone;
> >>         int kelvin_offset;      /* in millidegrees */
> >>         struct work_struct thermal_check_work;
> >> +       struct mutex thermal_check_lock;
> >> +       refcount_t thermal_check_count;
> >>  };
> >>
> >>  /* --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> @@ -495,14 +497,6 @@ static int acpi_thermal_get_trip_points(
> >>         return 0;
> >>  }
> >>
> >> -static void acpi_thermal_check(void *data)
> >> -{
> >> -       struct acpi_thermal *tz = data;
> >> -
> >> -       thermal_zone_device_update(tz->thermal_zone,
> >> -                                  THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
> >> -}
> >> -
> >>  /* sys I/F for generic thermal sysfs support */
> >>
> >>  static int thermal_get_temp(struct thermal_zone_device *thermal, int *temp)
> >> @@ -900,6 +894,12 @@ static void acpi_thermal_unregister_ther
> >>                                   Driver Interface
> >>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
> >>
> >> +static void acpi_queue_thermal_check(struct acpi_thermal *tz)
> >> +{
> >> +       if (!work_pending(&tz->thermal_check_work))
> >> +               queue_work(acpi_thermal_pm_queue, &tz->thermal_check_work);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  static void acpi_thermal_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
> >>  {
> >>         struct acpi_thermal *tz = acpi_driver_data(device);
> >> @@ -910,17 +910,17 @@ static void acpi_thermal_notify(struct a
> >>
> >>         switch (event) {
> >>         case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_TEMPERATURE:
> >> -               acpi_thermal_check(tz);
> >> +               acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
> >>                 break;
> >>         case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_THRESHOLDS:
> >>                 acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS);
> >> -               acpi_thermal_check(tz);
> >> +               acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
> >>                 acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
> >>                                                   dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
> >>                 break;
> >>         case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_DEVICES:
> >>                 acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES);
> >> -               acpi_thermal_check(tz);
> >> +               acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
> >>                 acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
> >>                                                   dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
> >>                 break;
> >> @@ -1020,7 +1020,25 @@ static void acpi_thermal_check_fn(struct
> >>  {
> >>         struct acpi_thermal *tz = container_of(work, struct acpi_thermal,
> >>                                                thermal_check_work);
> >> -       acpi_thermal_check(tz);
> >> +
> >> +       /*
> >> +        * In general, it is not sufficient to check the pending bit, because
> >> +        * subsequent instances of this function may be queued after one of them
> >> +        * has started running (e.g. if _TMP sleeps).  Avoid bailing out if just
> >> +        * one of them is running, though, because it may have done the actual
> >> +        * check some time ago, so allow at least one of them to block on the
> >> +        * mutex while another one is running the update.
> >> +        */
> >> +       if (!refcount_dec_not_one(&tz->thermal_check_count))
> >> +               return;
> >> +
> >> +       mutex_lock(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
> >> +
> >> +       thermal_zone_device_update(tz->thermal_zone, THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
> >> +
> >> +       refcount_inc(&tz->thermal_check_count);
> >> +
> >> +       mutex_unlock(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
> >>  }
> >>
> >>  static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device)
> >> @@ -1052,6 +1070,8 @@ static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_
> >>         if (result)
> >>                 goto free_memory;
> >>
> >> +       refcount_set(&tz->thermal_check_count, 3);
> >> +       mutex_init(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
> >>         INIT_WORK(&tz->thermal_check_work, acpi_thermal_check_fn);
> >>
> >>         pr_info(PREFIX "%s [%s] (%ld C)\n", acpi_device_name(device),
> >> @@ -1117,7 +1137,7 @@ static int acpi_thermal_resume(struct de
> >>                 tz->state.active |= tz->trips.active[i].flags.enabled;
> >>         }
> >>
> >> -       queue_work(acpi_thermal_pm_queue, &tz->thermal_check_work);
> >> +       acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
> >>
> >>         return AE_OK;
> >>  }
> >>
> >>
> >>
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Jan. 22, 2021, 5:01 p.m. UTC | #4
On 2021-01-22 17:23:36 [+0100], Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> Well, it's been over a week since this was posted.

Thank you for this ;)

> Does anyone have any comments?

I looked over it and it makes sense, so
  Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>

I didn't comment on it since a testing-by would be better ;)

Could you please add a stable tag? I've seen a few "comments" in forums
suggesting what I suggested to Stephen as a work around while I was
searching for his motherboard so they are more people affected by the
shutdown problem.

Sebastian
Stephen Berman Jan. 24, 2021, 1:40 p.m. UTC | #5
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 17:42:59 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 5:39 PM Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 17:23:36 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 7:35 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>> >>
>> >> Calling acpi_thermal_check() from acpi_thermal_notify() directly
>> >> is problematic if _TMP triggers Notify () on the thermal zone for
>> >> which it has been evaluated (which happens on some systems), because
>> >> it causes a new acpi_thermal_notify() invocation to be queued up
>> >> every time and if that takes place too often, an indefinite number of
>> >> pending work items may accumulate in kacpi_notify_wq over time.
>> >>
>> >> Besides, it is not really useful to queue up a new invocation of
>> >> acpi_thermal_check() if one of them is pending already.
>> >>
>> >> For these reasons, rework acpi_thermal_notify() to queue up a thermal
>> >> check instead of calling acpi_thermal_check() directly and only allow
>> >> one thermal check to be pending at a time.  Moreover, only allow one
>> >> acpi_thermal_check_fn() instance at a time to run
>> >> thermal_zone_device_update() for one thermal zone and make it return
>> >> early if it sees other instances running for the same thermal zone.
>> >>
>> >> While at it, fold acpi_thermal_check() into acpi_thermal_check_fn(),
>> >> as it is only called from there after the other changes made here.
>> >>
>> >> BugLink: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208877
>> >> Reported-by: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@gmx.net>
>> >> Diagnosed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>> >
>> > Well, it's been over a week since this was posted.
>> >
>> > Does anyone have any comments?
>>
>> Sorry, I haven't been able to make time to test the patch yet, but I'll
>> try to do so this weekend.  Is it just the patch below that I should
>> apply, ignoring the previous patches you sent?
>
> Yes.
>
>> And can I apply it to the current mainline kernel?
>
> Yes, it should be applicable to the current mainline (at least as of 5.11-rc4).
>
> Thanks!

I've now updated my local repo to 5.11.0-rc4+, installed your patch,
rebuilt and installed the kernel, rebooted (without adding
'thermal.tzp=300' to the kernel command line), did some normal activity,
then ran 'shutdown -h now', and the machine did just that.  So your
patch seems to have fixed the problem I reported.  Many thanks!

Steve Berman

Patch
diff mbox series

Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/thermal.c
@@ -174,6 +174,8 @@  struct acpi_thermal {
 	struct thermal_zone_device *thermal_zone;
 	int kelvin_offset;	/* in millidegrees */
 	struct work_struct thermal_check_work;
+	struct mutex thermal_check_lock;
+	refcount_t thermal_check_count;
 };
 
 /* --------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -495,14 +497,6 @@  static int acpi_thermal_get_trip_points(
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static void acpi_thermal_check(void *data)
-{
-	struct acpi_thermal *tz = data;
-
-	thermal_zone_device_update(tz->thermal_zone,
-				   THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
-}
-
 /* sys I/F for generic thermal sysfs support */
 
 static int thermal_get_temp(struct thermal_zone_device *thermal, int *temp)
@@ -900,6 +894,12 @@  static void acpi_thermal_unregister_ther
                                  Driver Interface
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------- */
 
+static void acpi_queue_thermal_check(struct acpi_thermal *tz)
+{
+	if (!work_pending(&tz->thermal_check_work))
+		queue_work(acpi_thermal_pm_queue, &tz->thermal_check_work);
+}
+
 static void acpi_thermal_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
 {
 	struct acpi_thermal *tz = acpi_driver_data(device);
@@ -910,17 +910,17 @@  static void acpi_thermal_notify(struct a
 
 	switch (event) {
 	case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_TEMPERATURE:
-		acpi_thermal_check(tz);
+		acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
 		break;
 	case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_THRESHOLDS:
 		acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_THRESHOLDS);
-		acpi_thermal_check(tz);
+		acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
 		acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
 						  dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
 		break;
 	case ACPI_THERMAL_NOTIFY_DEVICES:
 		acpi_thermal_trips_update(tz, ACPI_TRIPS_REFRESH_DEVICES);
-		acpi_thermal_check(tz);
+		acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
 		acpi_bus_generate_netlink_event(device->pnp.device_class,
 						  dev_name(&device->dev), event, 0);
 		break;
@@ -1020,7 +1020,25 @@  static void acpi_thermal_check_fn(struct
 {
 	struct acpi_thermal *tz = container_of(work, struct acpi_thermal,
 					       thermal_check_work);
-	acpi_thermal_check(tz);
+
+	/*
+	 * In general, it is not sufficient to check the pending bit, because
+	 * subsequent instances of this function may be queued after one of them
+	 * has started running (e.g. if _TMP sleeps).  Avoid bailing out if just
+	 * one of them is running, though, because it may have done the actual
+	 * check some time ago, so allow at least one of them to block on the
+	 * mutex while another one is running the update.
+	 */
+	if (!refcount_dec_not_one(&tz->thermal_check_count))
+		return;
+
+	mutex_lock(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
+
+	thermal_zone_device_update(tz->thermal_zone, THERMAL_EVENT_UNSPECIFIED);
+
+	refcount_inc(&tz->thermal_check_count);
+
+	mutex_unlock(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
 }
 
 static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_device *device)
@@ -1052,6 +1070,8 @@  static int acpi_thermal_add(struct acpi_
 	if (result)
 		goto free_memory;
 
+	refcount_set(&tz->thermal_check_count, 3);
+	mutex_init(&tz->thermal_check_lock);
 	INIT_WORK(&tz->thermal_check_work, acpi_thermal_check_fn);
 
 	pr_info(PREFIX "%s [%s] (%ld C)\n", acpi_device_name(device),
@@ -1117,7 +1137,7 @@  static int acpi_thermal_resume(struct de
 		tz->state.active |= tz->trips.active[i].flags.enabled;
 	}
 
-	queue_work(acpi_thermal_pm_queue, &tz->thermal_check_work);
+	acpi_queue_thermal_check(tz);
 
 	return AE_OK;
 }