linux-kernel - [PATCH v2 1/7] cpufreq: Fix misplaced call to cpufreq_update

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

Message-ID: <20130729225319.20863.2697.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jul 2013 04:23:56 +0530
From:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	rjw@...k.pl, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, toralf.foerster@....de,
	robert.jarzmik@...el.com, durgadoss.r@...el.com,
	tianyu.lan@...el.com, lantianyu1986@...il.com,
	dirk.brandewie@...il.com
Cc:	stern@...land.harvard.edu, srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/7] cpufreq: Fix misplaced call to cpufreq_update_policy()

The call to cpufreq_update_policy() is placed in the CPU hotplug callback
of cpufreq_stats, which has a higher priority than the CPU hotplug callback
of cpufreq-core. As a result, during CPU_ONLINE/CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN, we end up
calling cpufreq_update_policy() *before* calling cpufreq_add_dev() !
And for uninitialized CPUs, it just returns silently, not doing anything.

To add to it, cpufreq_stats is not even the right place to call
cpufreq_update_policy() to begin with. The cpufreq core ought to handle
this in its own callback, from an elegance/relevance perspective.

So move the invocation of cpufreq_update_policy() to cpufreq_cpu_callback,
and place it *after* cpufreq_add_dev().

Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
---

 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c       |    1 +
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c |    6 ------
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index c1a917a..347aef3 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1933,6 +1933,7 @@ static int cpufreq_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
 		case CPU_ONLINE:
 		case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN:
 			cpufreq_add_dev(dev, NULL);
+			cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
 			break;
 		case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
 		case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE_FROZEN:
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
index d37568c..bc73be2 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
@@ -348,10 +348,6 @@ static int cpufreq_stat_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
 	unsigned int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
 
 	switch (action) {
-	case CPU_ONLINE:
-	case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN:
-		cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
-		break;
 	case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
 	case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE_FROZEN:
 		cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs(cpu);
@@ -390,8 +386,6 @@ static int __init cpufreq_stats_init(void)
 		return ret;
 
 	register_hotcpu_notifier(&cpufreq_stat_cpu_notifier);
-	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
-		cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
 
 	ret = cpufreq_register_notifier(&notifier_trans_block,
 				CPUFREQ_TRANSITION_NOTIFIER);

--
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/