[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230516011001.epa4xlvbiimu6ai3@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 06:40:01 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@....com>
Cc: ray.huang@....com, rafael@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gautham.shenoy@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] cpufreq: Warn if fast_switch is not set
On 15-05-23, 11:34, Wyes Karny wrote:
> If fast_switch_possible flag is set by the scaling driver, the governor
> is free to select fast_switch function even if adjust_perf is set. When
> the frequency invariance is disabled due to some reason governor
> fallbacks to fast_switch if fast_switch_possible is set. This could
> crash the kernel if the driver didn't set the fast_switch function
> pointer.
>
> This issue becomes apparent when aperf/mperf overflow occurs with
> amd_pstate (passive) + schedutil. When this happens, kernel disables
> frequency invariance calculation which causes schedutil to fallback to
> sugov_update_single_freq which currently relies on the fast_switch
> callback.
>
> Normal flow:
> sugov_update_single_perf
> cpufreq_driver_adjust_perf
> cpufreq_driver->adjust_perf
>
> Error case flow:
> sugov_update_single_perf
> sugov_update_single_freq <-- This is chosen because the freq invariant is disabled due to aperf/mperf overflow
> cpufreq_driver_fast_switch
> cpufreq_driver->fast_switch <-- Here NULL pointer dereference is happening, because fast_switch is not set
Not sure if all these details are required for this patch or not. It
is logically incorrect to set fast_switch_possible, while fast_switch
isn't set. That's a reason enough.
> Put up a warning message if the driver sets fast_switch_possible flag
> but not fast_switch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@....com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 5 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 6b52ebe5a890..180be9235b08 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -501,6 +501,13 @@ void cpufreq_enable_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> if (!policy->fast_switch_possible)
> return;
>
> + /**
Doc style comments aren't required here I guess.
> + * It's not expected driver's fast_switch callback is not set
> + * even fast_switch_possible is true.
> + */
> + if (!cpufreq_driver_has_fast_switch())
> + pr_alert_once("fast_switch callback is not set\n");
> +
> mutex_lock(&cpufreq_fast_switch_lock);
> if (cpufreq_fast_switch_count >= 0) {
> cpufreq_fast_switch_count++;
> @@ -2143,6 +2150,17 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_driver_fast_switch);
>
> +/**
> + * cpufreq_driver_has_fast_switch - Check "fast switch" callback.
> + *
> + * Return 'true' if the ->fast_switch callback is present for the
> + * current driver or 'false' otherwise.
> + */
> +bool cpufreq_driver_has_fast_switch(void)
Why create a routine for this, when no one else is going to use it ?
> +{
> + return !!cpufreq_driver->fast_switch;
> +}
I think you should add the required check in cpufreq_online(), after
cpufreq_driver->init() is called, and return failure if fast_switch
isn't set and fast_switch_possible is.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists