[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=Z=nA2Mr23ior8c0Qmt75+bOVLvZwNdc7OXq-+rH1dWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 10:49:10 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: rjw@...k.pl, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
amit.kucheria@...aro.org, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
pdsw-power-team@....com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: Don't use cpu removed during cpufreq_driver_unregister
On 3 January 2013 19:55, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> I took a quick look at the problem you described above, and the cpufreq code..
> If we cannot avoid calling cpufreq_add_dev() from cpufreq_remove_dev(), then I can't
> think of anything better than what your patch does.
Good :)
> BTW, off-topic, while going through that path, I think I found a memory leak
> in __cpufreq_remove_dev():
>
> if (unlikely(cpumask_weight(data->cpus) > 1)) {
> for_each_cpu(j, data->cpus) {
> if (j == cpu)
> continue;
> per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = NULL;
> }
> }
>
> We are assigning NULL without freeing that memory.
Not really. All cpus in affected_cpus (data->cpus), share the same
policy structure.
We have already taken backup of cpufreq_cpu_data for the first cpu in "data" and
are freeing it here:
kfree(data);
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists