In cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs() we aren't balancing calls to cpufreq_cpu_get() with cpufreq_cpu_put(). This will never let us have ref count to policy->kobj as zero.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c | 12 ++++++++---- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c index 2fd779e..bfd6273 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c @@ -180,15 +180,19 @@ static void cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs(unsigned int cpu) { struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
- if (!cpufreq_frequency_get_table(cpu)) + if (!policy) return;
- if (policy && !policy_is_shared(policy)) { + if (!cpufreq_frequency_get_table(cpu)) + goto put_ref; + + if (!policy_is_shared(policy)) { pr_debug("%s: Free sysfs stat\n", __func__); sysfs_remove_group(&policy->kobj, &stats_attr_group); } - if (policy) - cpufreq_cpu_put(policy); + +put_ref: + cpufreq_cpu_put(policy); }
static int cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
In cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs() we aren't balancing calls to cpufreq_cpu_get() with cpufreq_cpu_put(). This will never let us have ref count to policy->kobj as zero.
Rafael,
Since this prevents booting on our hardware (we unregister and re-register the cpufreq driver to account for virtual cores), will this be considered as a hotfix for 3.9?
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Acked-by: Amit Kucheria amit.kucheria@linaro.org
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c | 12 ++++++++---- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c index 2fd779e..bfd6273 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c @@ -180,15 +180,19 @@ static void cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs(unsigned int cpu) { struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
if (!cpufreq_frequency_get_table(cpu))
if (!policy) return;
if (policy && !policy_is_shared(policy)) {
if (!cpufreq_frequency_get_table(cpu))goto put_ref;if (!policy_is_shared(policy)) { pr_debug("%s: Free sysfs stat\n", __func__); sysfs_remove_group(&policy->kobj, &stats_attr_group); }
if (policy)cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
+put_ref:
cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);}
static int cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e
On 22 March 2013 16:42, Amit Kucheria amit.kucheria@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
In cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs() we aren't balancing calls to cpufreq_cpu_get() with cpufreq_cpu_put(). This will never let us have ref count to policy->kobj as zero.
Rafael,
Since this prevents booting on our hardware (we unregister and re-register the cpufreq driver to account for virtual cores), will this be considered as a hotfix for 3.9?
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Acked-by: Amit Kucheria amit.kucheria@linaro.org
Sorry i forgot to mention, this should be pushed for next rc.
On Friday, March 22, 2013 04:47:29 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 22 March 2013 16:42, Amit Kucheria amit.kucheria@linaro.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
In cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs() we aren't balancing calls to cpufreq_cpu_get() with cpufreq_cpu_put(). This will never let us have ref count to policy->kobj as zero.
Rafael,
Since this prevents booting on our hardware (we unregister and re-register the cpufreq driver to account for virtual cores), will this be considered as a hotfix for 3.9?
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Acked-by: Amit Kucheria amit.kucheria@linaro.org
Sorry i forgot to mention, this should be pushed for next rc.
Well, -rc5 is a realistic target.
Thanks, Rafael
On Friday, March 22, 2013 04:42:57 PM Amit Kucheria wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
In cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs() we aren't balancing calls to cpufreq_cpu_get() with cpufreq_cpu_put(). This will never let us have ref count to policy->kobj as zero.
Rafael,
Since this prevents booting on our hardware (we unregister and re-register the cpufreq driver to account for virtual cores), will this be considered as a hotfix for 3.9?
Sure. Can you please remind me what hardware is that, though?
Rafael
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Acked-by: Amit Kucheria amit.kucheria@linaro.org
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c | 12 ++++++++---- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c index 2fd779e..bfd6273 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c @@ -180,15 +180,19 @@ static void cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs(unsigned int cpu) { struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
if (!cpufreq_frequency_get_table(cpu))
if (!policy) return;
if (policy && !policy_is_shared(policy)) {
if (!cpufreq_frequency_get_table(cpu))goto put_ref;if (!policy_is_shared(policy)) { pr_debug("%s: Free sysfs stat\n", __func__); sysfs_remove_group(&policy->kobj, &stats_attr_group); }
if (policy)cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
+put_ref:
cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);}
static int cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 22 March 2013 17:29, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@sisk.pl wrote:
Sure. Can you please remind me what hardware is that, though?
Not yet upstreamed: big LITTLE :)
But, this is broken for all other platforms too.. You just need to compile your driver as module and insmod/remove it to call cpufreq_driver_unregister().
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org wrote:
On 22 March 2013 17:29, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@sisk.pl wrote:
Sure. Can you please remind me what hardware is that, though?
Not yet upstreamed: big LITTLE :)
Yes, the b.L cpufreq driver is being reviewed currently. And board support is being merged in.
But, this is broken for all other platforms too.. You just need to compile your driver as module and insmod/remove it to call cpufreq_driver_unregister().
On Friday, March 22, 2013 05:25:13 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 22 March 2013 17:29, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@sisk.pl wrote:
Sure. Can you please remind me what hardware is that, though?
Not yet upstreamed: big LITTLE :)
But, this is broken for all other platforms too.. You just need to compile your driver as module and insmod/remove it to call cpufreq_driver_unregister().
Which would be useful to write in the changelog, wouldn't it?
Rafael
On 22 March 2013 17:42, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@sisk.pl wrote:
Which would be useful to write in the changelog, wouldn't it?
Hmm..
copy-paste with gmail is also broken, so find it attached too.
New change log, no change in patch and you can trust me on that :)
----------x-------------x--------
From 034e5ac4cccd09872592a46decd38d5f24047f10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id: 034e5ac4cccd09872592a46decd38d5f24047f10.1363954124.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org From: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:15:48 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: stats: do cpufreq_cpu_put() corresponding to cpufreq_cpu_get
In cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs() we aren't balancing calls to cpufreq_cpu_get() with cpufreq_cpu_put(). This will never let us have ref count to policy->kobj as zero.
We will get a hang if somehow cpufreq_driver_unregister() is called. And that can happen when we compile our driver as module and insmod/rmmod it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
On Friday, March 22, 2013 05:40:25 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 22 March 2013 17:42, Rafael J. Wysocki rjw@sisk.pl wrote:
Which would be useful to write in the changelog, wouldn't it?
Hmm..
copy-paste with gmail is also broken, so find it attached too.
New change log, no change in patch and you can trust me on that :)
OK, applied to bleeding-edge.
Thanks, Rafael
----------x-------------x--------
From 034e5ac4cccd09872592a46decd38d5f24047f10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 Message-Id: 034e5ac4cccd09872592a46decd38d5f24047f10.1363954124.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org From: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 15:15:48 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: stats: do cpufreq_cpu_put() corresponding to cpufreq_cpu_get
In cpufreq_stats_free_sysfs() we aren't balancing calls to cpufreq_cpu_get() with cpufreq_cpu_put(). This will never let us have ref count to policy->kobj as zero.
We will get a hang if somehow cpufreq_driver_unregister() is called. And that can happen when we compile our driver as module and insmod/rmmod it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
-
Amit Kucheria -
Rafael J. Wysocki -
Viresh Kumar