On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:18:27PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 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.
Right, so we check below ..
>
> > cpumask_or(&done, &done, policy->cpus);
> > +
> > + if (policy->governor != &cpufreq_gov_ondemand)
> > + continue;
This should catch that case no ?
> > +
> > + 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
>
--
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
