linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] cpufreq: Introduce a more generic way to set default per-policy boost flag

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f724fc01a5013e97c8414a36d754f08bd3093db2.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2025 23:52:12 +0530
From: Aboorva Devarajan <aboorvad@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>, rafael@...nel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxarm@...wei.com, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com,
        zhanjie9@...ilicon.com, lihuisong@...wei.com, fanghao11@...wei.com,
        gautam@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] cpufreq: Introduce a more generic way to set
 default per-policy boost flag

On Wed, 2025-02-05 at 10:31 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 04-02-25, 22:11, Aboorva Devarajan wrote:
> > I noticed that Viresh is working on a similar patch [1] as part of a broader patchset
> > to simplify boost handling, which should also resolve this issue.
> > 
> > Should we merge this patch [1] and related patches since this is causing a crash,
> > or submit a separate patch to fix this?
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index d434096b7515..7c1f7f5142da 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1590,7 +1590,8 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
>                 policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
> 
>         /* Let the per-policy boost flag mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during init */
> -       if (policy->boost_enabled != cpufreq_boost_enabled()) {
> +       if (cpufreq_driver->set_boost &&
> +           policy->boost_enabled != cpufreq_boost_enabled()) {
>                 policy->boost_enabled = cpufreq_boost_enabled();
>                 ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(policy, policy->boost_enabled);
>                 if (ret) {
> 
> I think the right fix for now should be something like this. My series
> (which will be part of next merge window) can go in separately and
> revert this change then (as we won't see this problem then).
> 
> Please send a fix with something like this if it works fine, so Rafael
> can apply.
> 

Hi Viresh,

Thanks, I have posted a patch for this:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250205181347.2079272-1-aboorvad@linux.ibm.com/

this should get past the boot-time crash for now, until your patchset 
to simplify boost handling is merged.

Regards,
Aboorva