[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jbjykNooJ_PvkOjpE6hA0QFJUw+kpwYfNY7jOtkcPA0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 21:12:04 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
x86@...nel.org, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
jianyong.wu@....com, justin.he@....com,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/21] x86: intel_epb: Don't rely on link order
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 2:44 PM Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> From: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
>
> intel_epb_init() is called as a subsys_initcall() to register cpuhp
> callbacks. The callbacks make use of get_cpu_device() which will return
> NULL unless register_cpu() has been called. register_cpu() is called
> from topology_init(), which is also a subsys_initcall().
>
> This is fragile. Moving the register_cpu() to a different
> subsys_initcall() leads to a NULL dereference during boot.
>
> Make intel_epb_init() a late_initcall(), user-space can't provide a
> policy before this point anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
> Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
and I'd suggest sending this separately to the x86 list.
> ---
> subsys_initcall_sync() would be an option, but moving the register_cpu()
> calls into ACPI also means adding a safety net for CPUs that are online
> but not described properly by firmware. This lives in subsys_initcall_sync().
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c
> index e4c3ba91321c..f18d35fe27a9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_epb.c
> @@ -237,4 +237,4 @@ static __init int intel_epb_init(void)
> cpuhp_remove_state(CPUHP_AP_X86_INTEL_EPB_ONLINE);
> return ret;
> }
> -subsys_initcall(intel_epb_init);
> +late_initcall(intel_epb_init);
> --
> 2.30.2
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists