diff options
author | Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> | 2013-09-12 01:43:25 +0530 |
---|---|---|
committer | Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> | 2013-09-11 23:29:57 +0200 |
commit | 61173f256a3bebfbd09b4bd2c164dde378614091 (patch) | |
tree | 03cc6a56fba342d60e7abb94a207b1ceb650c9e8 | |
parent | 0d66b91ebff49841f607a3c079984c907c8a4199 (diff) | |
download | kernel_goldelico_gta04-61173f256a3bebfbd09b4bd2c164dde378614091.zip kernel_goldelico_gta04-61173f256a3bebfbd09b4bd2c164dde378614091.tar.gz kernel_goldelico_gta04-61173f256a3bebfbd09b4bd2c164dde378614091.tar.bz2 |
cpufreq: Restructure if/else block to avoid unintended behavior
In __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare(), the code which decides whether to remove
the sysfs link or nominate a new policy cpu, is governed by an if/else block
with a rather complex set of conditionals. Worse, they harbor a subtlety
which leads to certain unintended behavior.
The code looks like this:
if (cpu != policy->cpu && !frozen) {
sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
} else if (cpus > 1) {
new_cpu = cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(...);
...
update_policy_cpu(..., new_cpu);
}
The original intention was:
If the CPU going offline is not policy->cpu, just remove the link.
On the other hand, if the CPU going offline is the policy->cpu itself,
handover the policy->cpu job to some other surviving CPU in that policy.
But because the 'if' condition also includes the 'frozen' check, now there
are *two* possibilities by which we can enter the 'else' block:
1. cpu == policy->cpu (intended)
2. cpu != policy->cpu && frozen (unintended)
Due to the second (unintended) scenario, we end up spuriously nominating
a CPU as the policy->cpu, even when the existing policy->cpu is alive and
well. This can cause problems further down the line, especially when we end
up nominating the same policy->cpu as the new one (ie., old == new),
because it totally confuses update_policy_cpu().
To avoid this mess, restructure the if/else block to only do what was
originally intended, and thus prevent any unwelcome surprises.
Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
-rw-r--r-- | drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 5 |
1 files changed, 3 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 62bdb95..247842b 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -1193,8 +1193,9 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare(struct device *dev, cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus); unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu); - if (cpu != policy->cpu && !frozen) { - sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq"); + if (cpu != policy->cpu) { + if (!frozen) + sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq"); } else if (cpus > 1) { new_cpu = cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(policy, cpu, frozen); |