On 25 June 2013 21:49, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes, so sorry about that, it looks like I failed to test with:
No problem, it happens :)
> CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_PERFORMANCE=y
> CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE=y
> CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND=y
> CONFIG_X86_AMD_FREQ_SENSITIVITY=m
>
> The following patch fixes this, Tim, could you please test ? :
>
> ---8<---
>
> From 3c727b1f775448599e67c5fb2121d79448e80c90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:40:54 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH 1/1] cpufreq: fix NULL pointer deference at
> od_set_powersave_bias()
>
> When initializing the default powersave_bias value, we need to first
> make sure that this policy is running the ondemand governor.
>
> Reported-by: Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> index 4b9bb5d..93eb5cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> @@ -47,6 +47,8 @@ static struct od_ops od_ops;
> static struct cpufreq_governor cpufreq_gov_ondemand;
> #endif
>
> +static unsigned int default_powersave_bias;
> +
> static void ondemand_powersave_bias_init_cpu(int cpu)
> {
> struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info = &per_cpu(od_cpu_dbs_info, cpu);
> @@ -543,7 +545,7 @@ static int od_init(struct dbs_data *dbs_data)
>
> tuners->sampling_down_factor = DEF_SAMPLING_DOWN_FACTOR;
> tuners->ignore_nice = 0;
> - tuners->powersave_bias = 0;
> + tuners->powersave_bias = default_powersave_bias;
> tuners->io_is_busy = should_io_be_busy();
>
> dbs_data->tuners = tuners;
> @@ -585,6 +587,7 @@ static void od_set_powersave_bias(unsigned int powersave_bias)
> unsigned int cpu;
> cpumask_t done;
>
> + default_powersave_bias = powersave_bias;
Why are the above three changes required? And in case they are, then
they must have been commited separately.
> cpumask_clear(&done);
>
> get_online_cpus();
> @@ -593,11 +596,17 @@ static void od_set_powersave_bias(unsigned int powersave_bias)
> continue;
>
> policy = per_cpu(od_cpu_dbs_info, cpu).cdbs.cur_policy;
> - dbs_data = policy->governor_data;
> - od_tuners = dbs_data->tuners;
> - od_tuners->powersave_bias = powersave_bias;
> + if (!policy)
> + continue;
I am not sure if this is enough. What if we had ondemand as the
governor initially, then we changed it to something else. Now also
cur_policy contains a address and isn't zero.
> cpumask_or(&done, &done, policy->cpus);
> +
> + if (policy->governor != &cpufreq_gov_ondemand)
> + continue;
> +
> + dbs_data = policy->governor_data;
> + od_tuners = dbs_data->tuners;
> + od_tuners->powersave_bias = default_powersave_bias;
> }
> put_online_cpus();
> }
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
