linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: cpufreq: Avoid sleeping while atomic

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:32:06 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / OPP: cpufreq: Avoid sleeping while atomic

On 18 July 2014 04:57, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> First you need to enable sleeping while atomic checking, but in reality,
> I assume nobody has tried inserting a cpufreq driver as a module. The

I did for sure, but long back. Over 6 months atleast :)

> might_sleep() code has a check to see if the system_state is
> SYSTEM_RUNNING. If it isn't running then there isn't a warning and
> might_sleep() doesn't flag any problem. I wonder if that is actually the
> right thing to do though? Perhaps the intention of that code is to skip
> warning early on in the boot path when the scheduler isn't up and
> running yet. But once the scheduler is running (which is fairly early
> nowadays) I would think we want might_sleep() to trigger warnings. Maybe
> that check in might_sleep() needs to be updated to check for "scheduler
> running" instead of "system running"?
> Right. It seems that we moved to RCU in commit
> 0f5c890e9b9754d9aa5bf6ae2fc00cae65780d23 so the real Fixes line should be:
>
> Fixes: 0f5c890e9b97 "PM / OPP: Remove cpufreq wrapper dependency on
> internal data organization"

Right.

> One way to avoid this problem is to put things back the way they were
> before that change. Is there any real benefit to having this code live
> in drivers/cpufreq/ instead of just under some config option in
> drivers/base/power/opp.c?

Maybe Nishanth can give more arguments than I can :), but the idea was
just to keep cpufreq stuff together..
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/