linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Improve code around unlisted freq check

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: <75176efa-a837-004f-c9ec-c9e2370834ae@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:47:34 +0530
From:   Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>
CC:     <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Improve code around unlisted freq check



On 13/10/20 10:42 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> The cpufreq core checks if the frequency programmed by the bootloaders
> is not listed in the freq table and programs one from the table in such
> a case. This is done only if the driver has set the
> CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK flag.
> 
> Currently we print two separate messages, with almost the same content,
> and do this with a pr_warn() which may be a bit too much as the driver
> only asked us to check this as it expected this to be the case. Lower
> down the severity of the print message by switching to pr_info() instead
> and print a single message only.
> 

Reviewed-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
Tested-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>

> Reported-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
>   drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 15 +++++++--------
>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 2ea245a6c0c0..99864afac272 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1461,14 +1461,13 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
>           */
>          if ((cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK)
>              && has_target()) {
> +               unsigned int old_freq = policy->cur;
> +
>                  /* Are we running at unknown frequency ? */
> -               ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_get_index(policy, policy->cur);
> +               ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_get_index(policy, old_freq);
>                  if (ret == -EINVAL) {
> -                       /* Warn user and fix it */
> -                       pr_warn("%s: CPU%d: Running at unlisted freq: %u KHz\n",
> -                               __func__, policy->cpu, policy->cur);
> -                       ret = __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, policy->cur - 1,
> -                               CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
> +                       ret = __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, old_freq - 1,
> +                                                     CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
> 
>                          /*
>                           * Reaching here after boot in a few seconds may not
> @@ -1476,8 +1475,8 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
>                           * frequency for longer duration. Hence, a BUG_ON().
>                           */
>                          BUG_ON(ret);
> -                       pr_warn("%s: CPU%d: Unlisted initial frequency changed to: %u KHz\n",
> -                               __func__, policy->cpu, policy->cur);
> +                       pr_info("%s: CPU%d: Running at unlisted initial frequency: %u KHz, changing to: %u KHz\n",
> +                               __func__, policy->cpu, old_freq, policy->cur);
>                  }
>          }
> 
> --
> 2.25.0.rc1.19.g042ed3e048af
>