5.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com
[ Upstream commit 79443a7e9da3c9f68290a8653837e23aba0fa89f ]
The handling of the limits_changed flag in struct sugov_policy needs to be explicitly synchronized to ensure that cpufreq policy limits updates will not be missed in some cases.
Without that synchronization it is theoretically possible that the limits_changed update in sugov_should_update_freq() will be reordered with respect to the reads of the policy limits in cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() and in that case, if the limits_changed update in sugov_limits() clobbers the one in sugov_should_update_freq(), the new policy limits may not take effect for a long time.
Likewise, the limits_changed update in sugov_limits() may theoretically get reordered with respect to the updates of the policy limits in cpufreq_set_policy() and if sugov_should_update_freq() runs between them, the policy limits change may be missed.
To ensure that the above situations will not take place, add memory barriers preventing the reordering in question from taking place and add READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE() annotations around all of the limits_changed flag updates to prevent the compiler from messing up with that code.
Fixes: 600f5badb78c ("cpufreq: schedutil: Don't skip freq update when limits change") Cc: 5.3+ stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.3+ Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Reviewed-by: Christian Loehle christian.loehle@arm.com Link: https://patch.msgid.link/3376719.44csPzL39Z@rjwysocki.net [ Adjust context ] Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c @@ -88,9 +88,20 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(str if (!cpufreq_this_cpu_can_update(sg_policy->policy)) return false;
- if (unlikely(sg_policy->limits_changed)) { - sg_policy->limits_changed = false; + if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(sg_policy->limits_changed))) { + WRITE_ONCE(sg_policy->limits_changed, false); sg_policy->need_freq_update = true; + + /* + * The above limits_changed update must occur before the reads + * of policy limits in cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() or a policy + * limits update might be missed, so use a memory barrier to + * ensure it. + * + * This pairs with the write memory barrier in sugov_limits(). + */ + smp_mb(); + return true; }
@@ -444,7 +455,7 @@ static inline bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(str static inline void ignore_dl_rate_limit(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, struct sugov_policy *sg_policy) { if (cpu_bw_dl(cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu)) > sg_cpu->bw_dl) - sg_policy->limits_changed = true; + WRITE_ONCE(sg_policy->limits_changed, true); }
static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time, @@ -894,7 +905,16 @@ static void sugov_limits(struct cpufreq_ mutex_unlock(&sg_policy->work_lock); }
- sg_policy->limits_changed = true; + /* + * The limits_changed update below must take place before the updates + * of policy limits in cpufreq_set_policy() or a policy limits update + * might be missed, so use a memory barrier to ensure it. + * + * This pairs with the memory barrier in sugov_should_update_freq(). + */ + smp_wmb(); + + WRITE_ONCE(sg_policy->limits_changed, true); }
struct cpufreq_governor schedutil_gov = {