linux-kernel - Re: Crashes in arm qemu emulations due to 'cpufreq: governor: Replace timers with utilization ...'

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: <20160216011335.GI6334@vireshk-i7>
Date:	Tue, 16 Feb 2016 06:43:35 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Crashes in arm qemu emulations due to 'cpufreq: governor:
 Replace timers with utilization ...'

On 15-02-16, 19:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > [    1.340000] [<c0958e78>] (__cpufreq_driver_target) from [<c095ca58>] (dbs_check_cpu+0x1ac/0x1e8)
> > [    1.340000] [<c095ca58>] (dbs_check_cpu) from [<c095cd04>] (cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x1fc/0x608)
> > [    1.340000] [<c095cd04>] (cpufreq_governor_dbs) from [<c0959c5c>] (__cpufreq_governor+0x1a8/0x204)
> > [    1.340000] [<c0959c5c>] (__cpufreq_governor) from [<c095a2dc>] (cpufreq_init_policy+0x60/0x8c)
> > [    1.340000] [<c095a2dc>] (cpufreq_init_policy) from [<c095a5f0>] (cpufreq_online+0x2e8/0x708)
> > [    1.340000] [<c095a5f0>] (cpufreq_online) from [<c075674c>] (subsys_interface_register+0x80/0xc4)
> > [    1.340000] [<c075674c>] (subsys_interface_register) from [<c0959764>] (cpufreq_register_driver+0x144/0x1a0)
> 
> This is the registration of the cpufreq driver (cpufreq-dt in this case).
> 
> It does cpufreq_online()->cpufreq_init_policy()->__cpufreq_governor()->cpufreq_governor_dbs()->dbs_check_cpu().
> 
> The only way that can happen is when cpufreq_set_policy() finds that
> the "old" and the "new" policies use the same governor, so it goes and
> calls __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS), but I'm not sure
> how this is possible during the initialization ATM.
> 
> Viresh, any ideas?

You misread probably.

During init, policy->gov is NULL and new_policy->gov is set to the
default one, probably ondemand/conservative. And in that case, we do:
- INIT
- START
- LIMITS

So above sequence is guaranteed to happen rather.

-- 
viresh