[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jc0hiYVi9jiRmBSZ6E9=8KM-516GWyesGNtz5=CrzT3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:20:40 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid using inactive policies
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 17-11-16, 16:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>>
>> There are two places in the cpufreq core in which low-level driver
>> callbacks may be invoked for an inactive cpufreq policy, which isn't
>> guaranteed to work in general. Both are due to possible races with
>> CPU offline.
>>
>> First, in cpufreq_get(), the policy may become inactive after
>> the check against policy->cpus in cpufreq_cpu_get() and before
>> policy->rwsem is acquired, in which case using the policy going
>> forward may not be correct.
>>
>> Second, an analogous situation is possible in cpufreq_update_policy().
>>
>> Avoid using inactive policies by adding policy_is_inactive() checks
>> to the code in the above places.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 8 +++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1526,7 +1526,10 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_get(unsigned int cp
>>
>> if (policy) {
>> down_read(&policy->rwsem);
>> - ret_freq = __cpufreq_get(policy);
>> +
>> + if (!policy_is_inactive(policy))
>> + ret_freq = __cpufreq_get(policy);
>> +
>> up_read(&policy->rwsem);
>>
>> cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>> @@ -2265,6 +2268,9 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int c
>>
>> down_write(&policy->rwsem);
>>
>> + if (policy_is_inactive(policy))
>
> You also need to set some value to 'ret' as it is uninitialized right now.
Right, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists