[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53A1A4A9.4060301@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:39:37 -0700
From: Aaron Plattner <aplattner@...dia.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC: "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: unlock when failing cpufreq_update_policy()
On 06/18/2014 12:40 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 18 June 2014 05:42, Aaron Plattner <aplattner@...dia.com> wrote:
>> Commit bd0fa9bb455d introduced a failure path to cpufreq_update_policy() if
>> cpufreq_driver->get(cpu) returns NULL. However, it jumps to the 'no_policy'
>> label, which exits without unlocking any of the locks the function acquired
>> earlier. This causes later calls into cpufreq to hang.
>>
>> Fix this by creating a new 'unlock' label and jumping to that instead.
>>
>> Fixes: bd0fa9bb455d ("cpufreq: Return error if ->get() failed in cpufreq_update_policy()")
>> Link: https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/751903/kernel-3-15-and-nv-drivers-337-340-failed-to-initialize-the-nvidia-kernel-module-gtx-550-ti-/
>> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Plattner <aplattner@...dia.com>
>> ---
>> I haven't reproduced this problem so I couldn't test it, but the bug and its
>> solution seem obvious enough.
>>
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index aed2b0cb83dc..5b6d04f3b9ea 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -2264,7 +2264,7 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
>> new_policy.cur = cpufreq_driver->get(cpu);
>> if (WARN_ON(!new_policy.cur)) {
>> ret = -EIO;
>> - goto no_policy;
>> + goto unlock;
>> }
>>
>> if (!policy->cur) {
>> @@ -2279,6 +2279,7 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
>>
>> ret = cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
>>
>> +unlock:
>> up_write(&policy->rwsem);
>>
>> cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>
> Hmm, yes we do have a problem here but the code became a bit ugly
> now.. Can you please consider this diff instead?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index aed2b0c..6caced5 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -2242,10 +2242,8 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
> struct cpufreq_policy new_policy;
> int ret;
>
> - if (!policy) {
> - ret = -ENODEV;
> - goto no_policy;
> - }
> + if (!policy)
> + return = -ENODEV;
I assume you meant "return -ENODEV"?
> down_write(&policy->rwsem);
>
> @@ -2279,10 +2277,10 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
>
> ret = cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
>
> +no_policy:
'no_policy' implied to me that policy was NULL, so this label should
still be renamed to 'unlock'. I'll send out a v2 that does this.
> up_write(&policy->rwsem);
>
> cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> -no_policy:
> return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_update_policy);
>
--
Aaron
--
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