Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 190/249] cpufreq: Avoid calling cpufreq_verify_current_freq() from handle_update()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 7/15/2019 3:45 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>

[ Upstream commit 70a59fde6e69d1d8579f84bf4555bfffb3ce452d ]

On some occasions cpufreq_verify_current_freq() schedules a work whose
callback is handle_update(), which further calls cpufreq_update_policy()
which may end up calling cpufreq_verify_current_freq() again.

On the other hand, when cpufreq_update_policy() is called from
handle_update(), the pointer to the cpufreq policy is already
available, but cpufreq_cpu_acquire() is still called to get it in
cpufreq_update_policy(), which should be avoided as well.

To fix these issues, create a new helper, refresh_frequency_limits(),
and make both handle_update() call it cpufreq_update_policy().

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
[ rjw: Rename reeval_frequency_limits() as refresh_frequency_limits() ]
[ rjw: Changelog ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index e84bf0eb7239..876a4cb09de3 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1114,13 +1114,25 @@ static int cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int cp
  	return ret;
  }
+static void refresh_frequency_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
+{
+	struct cpufreq_policy new_policy = *policy;
+
+	pr_debug("updating policy for CPU %u\n", policy->cpu);
+
+	new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min;
+	new_policy.max = policy->user_policy.max;
+
+	cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
+}
+
  static void handle_update(struct work_struct *work)
  {
  	struct cpufreq_policy *policy =
  		container_of(work, struct cpufreq_policy, update);
-	unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu;
-	pr_debug("handle_update for cpu %u called\n", cpu);
-	cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
+
+	pr_debug("handle_update for cpu %u called\n", policy->cpu);
+	refresh_frequency_limits(policy);
  }
static struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_policy_alloc(unsigned int cpu)
@@ -2392,7 +2404,6 @@ int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
  void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
  {
  	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_acquire(cpu);
-	struct cpufreq_policy new_policy;
if (!policy)
  		return;
@@ -2405,12 +2416,7 @@ void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
  	    (cpufreq_suspended || WARN_ON(!cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy))))
  		goto unlock;
- pr_debug("updating policy for CPU %u\n", cpu);
-	memcpy(&new_policy, policy, sizeof(*policy));
-	new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min;
-	new_policy.max = policy->user_policy.max;
-
-	cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
+	refresh_frequency_limits(policy);
unlock:
  	cpufreq_cpu_release(policy);

I don't think this is suitable for -stable.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux