Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966543Ab3DQOEw (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:04:52 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com ([209.85.212.173]:43644 "EHLO mail-wi0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966481Ab3DQOEt (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:04:49 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: <1923819.6Nb81T2TR8@vostro.rjw.lan> <516C25AE.4050503@intel.com> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:04:46 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 9 [cpufreq: NULL pointer deref] From: Sedat Dilek To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Dirk Brandewie , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Dirk Brandewie , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, Linux PM list , Lists linaro-kernel , Nathan Zimmer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4064 Lines: 110 On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 15 April 2013 21:37, Dirk Brandewie wrote: >> If the intel_pstate driver is being used __cpufreq_governor() should NOT be >> called intel_pstate does not implement the target() callback. >> >> Nathan's commit 5800043b2 changed the fence around the call to >> __cpufreq_governor() in __cpufreq_remove_dev() here is the relevant hunk. > > No it isn't. > >> + if (has_target) >> __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP); > > As it has taken care of this limitation. > > BUT some of my earlier patches haven't. :( > Here is the fix (Sedat please try this and give your tested-by, use the attached > patch as gmail might break what i am copying in mail).. > > Sorry for being late in fixing this issue, i am still down with Tonsil infection > and fever.. Today only i got some power to fix it after seeing Dirk's mail. > > Your tested-by may help me to recover quickly :) > > @Rafael: I will probably be down for one more week and so not doing any > reviews for now... I do check important mails sent directly to me though. > Hi Viresh, can you sent a separate patch on this (with Reported/Tested-by#s)? AFAICS this is not in pm.git#linux-next? Regards, - Sedat - > ------------x----------------------x------------------ > > From: Viresh Kumar > Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 22:43:57 +0530 > Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Don't call __cpufreq_governor() for drivers without > target() > > Some cpufreq drivers implement their own governor and so don't need us to call > generic governors interface via __cpufreq_governor(). Few recent commits haven't > obeyed this law well and we saw some regressions. > > This patch tries to fix this issue. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 18 +++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 3564947..a6f6595 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -858,13 +858,18 @@ static int cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(unsigned int > cpu, unsigned int sibling, > struct device *dev) > { > struct cpufreq_policy *policy; > - int ret = 0; > + int ret = 0, has_target = 0; > unsigned long flags; > > policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(sibling); > WARN_ON(!policy); > > - __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP); > + rcu_read_lock(); > + has_target = !!rcu_dereference(cpufreq_driver)->target; > + rcu_read_unlock(); > + > + if (has_target) > + __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP); > > lock_policy_rwsem_write(sibling); > > @@ -877,8 +882,10 @@ static int cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(unsigned int > cpu, unsigned int sibling, > > unlock_policy_rwsem_write(sibling); > > - __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_START); > - __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS); > + if (has_target) { > + __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_START); > + __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS); > + } > > ret = sysfs_create_link(&dev->kobj, &policy->kobj, "cpufreq"); > if (ret) { > @@ -1146,7 +1153,8 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device > *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif > > /* If cpu is last user of policy, free policy */ > if (cpus == 1) { > - __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT); > + if (has_target) > + __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT); > > lock_policy_rwsem_read(cpu); > kobj = &data->kobj; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/