Earlier there used to be two functions named __cpufreq_set_policy() and
cpufreq_set_policy(), but now we only have a single routine lets name it
cpufreq_set_policy() instead of __cpufreq_set_policy().

This also removes some invalid comments or fixes some incorrect comments.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Nobody except cpufreq_remove_dev() calls __cpufreq_remove_dev() and
so we don't need two separate routines here. Merge code from
__cpufreq_remove_dev() into cpufreq_remove_dev() and get rid of
__cpufreq_remove_dev().
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

As a rule its better not to break string (quoted inside "") in a
print statement even if it crosses 80 column boundary as that may
introduce bugs and so this patch rewrites one of the print statements..
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

We don't need a blank line just at start of a block, lets remove it.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Some section of kerneldoc comment for __cpufreq_remove_dev() is invalid now.
Remove it.
Suggested-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

lock_policy_rwsem_{read|write}() currently has return type of int,
but it always returns zero and hence its return type should be void
instead. This patch makes that change and modifies all of the users
accordingly.

Reported-by: Jon Medhurst<tixy@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

cpufreq_get() can be called from external drivers which might not be aware if
cpufreq driver is registered or not. And so we should actually check if cpufreq
driver is registered or not and also if cpufreq is active or disabled, at the
beginning of cpufreq_get().

Otherwise call to lock_policy_rwsem_read() might hit BUG_ON(!policy).
Reported-and-tested-by: NLinus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

On systems that support intel_pstate, acpi_cpufreq fails to load, and
udev keeps trying until trace gets filled up and kernel crashes.

The root cause is driver return ret from cpufreq_register_driver(),
because when some other driver takes over before, it will return
EBUSY and then udev will keep trying ...

cpufreq_register_driver() should return EEXIST instead so that the
system can boot without appending intel_pstate=disable and still use
intel_pstate.
Signed-off-by: NYinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Current code looks like this:

        WARN_ON(lock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu));
        update_policy_cpu(policy, new_cpu);
        unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu);

{lock|unlock}_policy_rwsem_write(cpu) takes/releases policy->cpu's rwsem.
Because cpu is changing with the call to update_policy_cpu(), the
unlock_policy_rwsem_write() will release the incorrect lock.

The right solution would be to release the same lock as was taken earlier. Also
update_policy_cpu() was also called from cpufreq_add_dev() without any locks and
so its better if we move this locking to inside update_policy_cpu().

This patch fixes a regression introduced in 3.12 by commit f9ba680d
(cpufreq: Extract the handover of policy cpu to a helper function).

Reported-and-tested-by: Jon Medhurst<tixy@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

This broke after a recent change "cedb70af cpufreq: Split __cpufreq_remove_dev()
into two parts" from Srivatsa.

Consider a scenario where we have two CPUs in a policy (0 & 1) and we are
removing CPU 1. On the call to __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare() we have cleared 1
from policy->cpus and now on a call to __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish() we read
cpumask_weight of policy->cpus, which will come as 1 and this code will behave
as if we are removing the last CPU from policy :)

Fix it by clearing the CPU mask in __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish() instead of
__cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare().
Tested-by: NStephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Reviewed-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

In cpufreq_policy_restore() before system suspend policy is read from
percpu's cpufreq_cpu_data_fallback.  It's a read operation rather
than a write one, so take the lock for reading in there.
Signed-off-by: NLan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

If update_policy_cpu() is invoked with the existing policy->cpu itself
as the new-cpu parameter, then a lot of things can go terribly wrong.

In its present form, update_policy_cpu() always assumes that the new-cpu
is different from policy->cpu and invokes other functions to perform their
respective updates. And those functions implement the actual update like
this:

per_cpu(..., new_cpu) = per_cpu(..., last_cpu);
per_cpu(..., last_cpu) = NULL;

Thus, when new_cpu == last_cpu, the final NULL assignment makes the per-cpu
references vanish into thin air! (memory leak). From there, it leads to more
problems: cpufreq_stats_create_table() now doesn't find the per-cpu reference
and hence tries to create a new sysfs-group; but sysfs already had created
the group earlier, so it complains that it cannot create a duplicate filename.
In short, the repercussions of a rather innocuous invocation of
update_policy_cpu() can turn out to be pretty nasty.

Ideally update_policy_cpu() should handle this situation (new == last)
gracefully, and not lead to such severe problems. So fix it by adding an
appropriate check.
Signed-off-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: NStephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

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: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: NStephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Stephen Warren reported that the cpufreq-stats code hits a NULL pointer
dereference during the second attempt to suspend a system. He also
pin-pointed the problem to commit 5302c3fb "cpufreq: Perform light-weight
init/teardown during suspend/resume".

That commit actually ensured that the cpufreq-stats table and the
cpufreq-stats sysfs entries are *not* torn down (ie., not freed) during
suspend/resume, which makes it all the more surprising. However, it turns
out that the root-cause is not that we access an already freed memory, but
that the reference to the allocated memory gets moved around and we lose
track of that during resume, leading to the reported crash in a subsequent
suspend attempt.

In the suspend path, during CPU offline, the value of policy->cpu is updated
by choosing one of the surviving CPUs in that policy, as long as there is
atleast one CPU in that policy. And cpufreq_stats_update_policy_cpu() is
invoked to update the reference to the stats structure by assigning it to
the new CPU. However, in the resume path, during CPU online, we end up
assigning a fresh CPU as the policy->cpu, without letting cpufreq-stats
know about this. Thus the reference to the stats structure remains
(incorrectly) associated with the old CPU. So, in a subsequent suspend attempt,
during CPU offline, we end up accessing an incorrect location to get the
stats structure, which eventually leads to the NULL pointer dereference.

Fix this by letting cpufreq-stats know about the update of the policy->cpu
during CPU online in the resume path. (Also, move the update_policy_cpu()
function higher up in the file, so that __cpufreq_add_dev() can invoke
it).
Reported-and-tested-by: NStephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Commit 7c30ed53 (cpufreq: make sure frequency transitions are
serialized) attempted to serialize frequency transitions by
adding checks to the CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE and CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE
notifications.  However, it assumed that the notifications will
always originate from the driver's .target() callback, but they
also can be triggered by cpufreq_out_of_sync() and that leads to
warnings like this on some systems:

 WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 14543 at drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:317
 __cpufreq_notify_transition+0x238/0x260()
 In middle of another frequency transition

accompanied by a call trace similar to this one:

 [<ffffffff81720daa>] dump_stack+0x46/0x58
 [<ffffffff8106534c>] warn_slowpath_common+0x8c/0xc0
 [<ffffffff815b8560>] ? acpi_cpufreq_target+0x320/0x320
 [<ffffffff81065436>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x46/0x50
 [<ffffffff815b1ec8>] __cpufreq_notify_transition+0x238/0x260
 [<ffffffff815b33be>] cpufreq_notify_transition+0x3e/0x70
 [<ffffffff815b345d>] cpufreq_out_of_sync+0x6d/0xb0
 [<ffffffff815b370c>] cpufreq_update_policy+0x10c/0x160
 [<ffffffff815b3760>] ? cpufreq_update_policy+0x160/0x160
 [<ffffffff81413813>] cpufreq_set_cur_state+0x8c/0xb5
 [<ffffffff814138df>] processor_set_cur_state+0xa3/0xcf
 [<ffffffff8158e13c>] thermal_cdev_update+0x9c/0xb0
 [<ffffffff8159046a>] step_wise_throttle+0x5a/0x90
 [<ffffffff8158e21f>] handle_thermal_trip+0x4f/0x140
 [<ffffffff8158e377>] thermal_zone_device_update+0x57/0xa0
 [<ffffffff81415b36>] acpi_thermal_check+0x2e/0x30
 [<ffffffff81415ca0>] acpi_thermal_notify+0x40/0xdc
 [<ffffffff813e7dbd>] acpi_device_notify+0x19/0x1b
 [<ffffffff813f8241>] acpi_ev_notify_dispatch+0x41/0x5c
 [<ffffffff813e3fbe>] acpi_os_execute_deferred+0x25/0x32
 [<ffffffff81081060>] process_one_work+0x170/0x4a0
 [<ffffffff81082121>] worker_thread+0x121/0x390
 [<ffffffff81082000>] ? manage_workers.isra.20+0x170/0x170
 [<ffffffff81088fe0>] kthread+0xc0/0xd0
 [<ffffffff81088f20>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0xb0/0xb0
 [<ffffffff8173582c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
 [<ffffffff81088f20>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0xb0/0xb0

For this reason, revert commit 7c30ed53 along with the fix 266c13d7
(cpufreq: Fix serialization of frequency transitions) on top of it
and we will revisit the serialization problem later.
Reported-by: NAlessandro Bono <alessandro.bono@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

There are places where the variable 'ret' is declared as unsigned int
and then used to store negative return values such as -EINVAL. Fix them
by declaring the variable as a signed quantity.
Signed-off-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Commit "cpufreq: serialize calls to __cpufreq_governor()" had been a temporary
and partial solution to the race condition between writing to a cpufreq sysfs
file and taking a CPU offline. Now that we have a proper and complete solution
to that problem, remove the temporary fix.
Signed-off-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The functions that are used to write to cpufreq sysfs files (such as
store_scaling_max_freq()) are not hotplug safe. They can race with CPU
hotplug tasks and lead to problems such as trying to acquire an already
destroyed timer-mutex etc.

Eg:

    __cpufreq_remove_dev()
     __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
       policy->governor->governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
        cpufreq_governor_dbs()
         case CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP:
          mutex_destroy(&cpu_cdbs->timer_mutex)
          cpu_cdbs->cur_policy = NULL;
      <PREEMPT>
    store()
     __cpufreq_set_policy()
      __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
        policy->governor->governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
         case CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS:
          mutex_lock(&cpu_cdbs->timer_mutex); <-- Warning (destroyed mutex)
           if (policy->max < cpu_cdbs->cur_policy->cur) <- cur_policy == NULL

So use get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() in the store_*() functions, to
synchronize with CPU hotplug. However, there is an additional point to note
here: some parts of the CPU teardown in the cpufreq subsystem are done in
the CPU_POST_DEAD stage, with cpu_hotplug.lock *released*. So, using the
get/put_online_cpus() functions alone is insufficient; we should also ensure
that we don't race with those latter steps in the hotplug sequence. We can
easily achieve this by checking if the CPU is online before proceeding with
the store, since the CPU would have been marked offline by the time the
CPU_POST_DEAD notifiers are executed.
Reported-by: NStephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

__cpufreq_remove_dev_finish() handles the kobject cleanup for a CPU going
offline. But because we destroy the kobject towards the end of the CPU offline
phase, there are certain race windows where a task can try to write to a
cpufreq sysfs file (eg: using store_scaling_max_freq()) while we are taking
that CPU offline, and this can bump up the kobject refcount, which in turn might
hinder the CPU offline task from running to completion. (It can also cause
other more serious problems such as trying to acquire a destroyed timer-mutex
etc., depending on the exact stage of the cleanup at which the task managed to
take a new refcount).

To fix the race window, we will need to synchronize those store_*() call-sites
with CPU hotplug, using get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus(). However, that
in turn can cause a total deadlock because it can end up waiting for the
CPU offline task to complete, with incremented refcount!

Write to sysfs                            CPU offline task
--------------                            ----------------
kobj_refcnt++

                                          Acquire cpu_hotplug.lock

get_online_cpus();

					  Wait for kobj_refcnt to drop to zero

                     **DEADLOCK**

A simple way to avoid this problem is to perform the kobject cleanup in the
CPU offline path, with the cpu_hotplug.lock *released*. That is, we can
perform the wait-for-kobj-refcnt-to-drop as well as the subsequent cleanup
in the CPU_POST_DEAD stage of CPU offline, which is run with cpu_hotplug.lock
released. Doing this helps us avoid deadlocks due to holding kobject refcounts
and waiting on each other on the cpu_hotplug.lock.

(Note: We can't move all of the cpufreq CPU offline steps to the
CPU_POST_DEAD stage, because certain things such as stopping the governors
have to be done before the outgoing CPU is marked offline. So retain those
parts in the CPU_DOWN_PREPARE stage itself).
Reported-by: NStephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

During CPU offline, the cpufreq core invokes __cpufreq_remove_dev()
to perform work such as stopping the cpufreq governor, clearing the
CPU from the policy structure etc, and finally cleaning up the
kobject.

There are certain subtle issues related to the kobject cleanup, and
it would be much easier to deal with them if we separate that part
from the rest of the cleanup-work in the CPU offline phase. So split
the __cpufreq_remove_dev() function into 2 parts: one that handles
the kobject cleanup, and the other that handles the rest of the work.
Reported-by: NStephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

We can't take a big lock around __cpufreq_governor() as this causes
recursive locking for some cases. But calls to this routine must be
serialized for every policy. Otherwise we can see some unpredictable
events.

For example, consider following scenario:

__cpufreq_remove_dev()
 __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
   policy->governor->governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
    cpufreq_governor_dbs()
     case CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP:
      mutex_destroy(&cpu_cdbs->timer_mutex)
      cpu_cdbs->cur_policy = NULL;
  <PREEMPT>
store()
 __cpufreq_set_policy()
  __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
    policy->governor->governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
     case CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS:
      mutex_lock(&cpu_cdbs->timer_mutex); <-- Warning (destroyed mutex)
       if (policy->max < cpu_cdbs->cur_policy->cur) <- cur_policy == NULL

And so store() will eventually result in a crash if cur_policy is
NULL at this point.

Introduce an additional variable which would guarantee serialization
here.
Reported-by: NStephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

__cpufreq_governor() returns with -EBUSY when governor is already
stopped and we try to stop it again, but when it is stopped we must
not allow calls to CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS event as well.

This patch adds this check in __cpufreq_governor().
Reported-by: NStephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

This patch tries to fix lockdep complaint attached below.

It seems that we should always read acquire the cpufreq_rwsem,
whether CONFIG_SMP is enabled or not.  And CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
depends on CONFIG_SMP, so it seems we don't need CONFIG_SMP for the
code enabled by CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU.

[    0.504191] =====================================
[    0.504627] [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
[    0.504627] 3.11.0-rc6-next-20130819 #1 Not tainted
[    0.504627] -------------------------------------
[    0.504627] swapper/1 is trying to release lock (cpufreq_rwsem) at:
[    0.504627] [<ffffffff813d927a>] cpufreq_add_dev+0x13a/0x3e0
[    0.504627] but there are no more locks to release!
[    0.504627]
[    0.504627] other info that might help us debug this:
[    0.504627] 1 lock held by swapper/1:
[    0.504627]  #0:  (subsys mutex#4){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8134a7bf>] subsys_interface_register+0x4f/0xe0
[    0.504627]
[    0.504627] stack backtrace:
[    0.504627] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper Not tainted 3.11.0-rc6-next-20130819 #1
[    0.504627] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2007
[    0.504627]  ffffffff813d927a ffff88007f847c98 ffffffff814c062b ffff88007f847cc8
[    0.504627]  ffffffff81098bce ffff88007f847cf8 ffffffff81aadc30 ffffffff813d927a
[    0.504627]  00000000ffffffff ffff88007f847d68 ffffffff8109d0be 0000000000000006
[    0.504627] Call Trace:
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff813d927a>] ? cpufreq_add_dev+0x13a/0x3e0
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff814c062b>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff81098bce>] print_unlock_imbalance_bug+0xfe/0x110
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff813d927a>] ? cpufreq_add_dev+0x13a/0x3e0
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff8109d0be>] lock_release_non_nested+0x1ee/0x310
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff81099d0e>] ? mark_held_locks+0xae/0x120
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff811510cb>] ? kfree+0xcb/0x1d0
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff813d77ea>] ? cpufreq_policy_free+0x4a/0x60
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff813d927a>] ? cpufreq_add_dev+0x13a/0x3e0
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff8109d2a4>] lock_release+0xc4/0x250
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff8106c9f3>] up_read+0x23/0x40
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff813d927a>] cpufreq_add_dev+0x13a/0x3e0
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff8134a809>] subsys_interface_register+0x99/0xe0
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff81b19f3b>] ? cpufreq_gov_dbs_init+0x12/0x12
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff813d7f0d>] cpufreq_register_driver+0x9d/0x1d0
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff81b19f3b>] ? cpufreq_gov_dbs_init+0x12/0x12
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff81b1a039>] acpi_cpufreq_init+0xfe/0x1f8
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff810002ba>] do_one_initcall+0xda/0x180
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff81ae301e>] kernel_init_freeable+0x12c/0x1bb
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff81ae2841>] ? do_early_param+0x8c/0x8c
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff814b4dd0>] ? rest_init+0x140/0x140
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff814b4dde>] kernel_init+0xe/0xf0
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff814d029a>] ret_from_fork+0x7a/0xb0
[    0.504627]  [<ffffffff814b4dd0>] ? rest_init+0x140/0x140
Signed-off-by: NLi Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-and-tested-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

To iterate over all policies we currently iterate over all online
CPUs and then get the policy for each of them which is suboptimal.
Use the newly created cpufreq_policy_list for this purpose instead.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

cpufreq_policy_cpu per-cpu variables are used for storing the ID of
the CPU that manages the given CPU's policy.  However, we also store
a policy pointer for each cpu in cpufreq_cpu_data, so the
cpufreq_policy_cpu information is simply redundant.

It is better to use cpufreq_cpu_data to retrieve a policy and get
policy->cpu from there, so make that happen everywhere and drop the
cpufreq_policy_cpu per-cpu variables which aren't necessary any more.

[rjw: Changelog]
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

We don't need to check if event is CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT and put
governor module as we are sure event can only be START/STOP here.

Remove the useless check.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

cpufreq_policy_list is a list of active policies.  We do remove
policies from this list when all CPUs belonging to that policy are
removed.  But during system suspend we don't really free a policy
struct as it will be used again during resume, so we didn't remove
it from cpufreq_policy_list as well..

However, this is incorrect.  We are saying this policy isn't valid
anymore and must not be referenced (though we haven't freed it), but
it can still be used by code that iterates over cpufreq_policy_list.

Remove policy from this list during system suspend as well.
Of course, we must add it back whenever the first CPU belonging to
that policy shows up.

[rjw: Changelog]
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Align closing brace '}' of an if block.

[rjw: Subject and changelog]
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Revert commit eb608521 (cpufreq: Use cpufreq_policy_list for iterating
over policies), because it breaks system suspend/resume on multiple
machines.

It either causes resume to block indefinitely or causes the BUG_ON()
in lock_policy_rwsem_##mode() to trigger on sysfs accesses to cpufreq
attributes.

Conflicts:
	drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c

The __cpufreq_governor() function can fail in rare cases especially
if there are bugs in cpufreq drivers.  Thus we must stop processing
as soon as this routine fails, otherwise it may result in undefined
behavior.

This patch adds error checking code whenever this routine is called
from any place.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Critical sections of the cpufreq core are protected with the help of
the driver module owner's refcount, which isn't the correct approach,
because it causes rmmod to return an error when some routine has
updated that refcount.

Let's use rwsem for this purpose instead.  Only
cpufreq_unregister_driver() will use write sem
and everybody else will use read sem.

[rjw: Subject & changelog]
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The cpufreq governor owner refcount usage is broken.  We should only
increment that refcount when a CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT event has come
and it should only be decremented if CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT has come.

Currently, there can be situations where the governor is in use, but
we have allowed it to be unloaded which may result in undefined
behavior.  Let's fix it.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

To iterate over all policies we currently iterate over all CPUs and
then get the policy for each of them.  Let's use the newly created
cpufreq_policy_list for this purpose.

[rjw: Changelog]
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Policies available in the cpufreq framework are now linked together.
They are accessible via cpufreq_policy_list defined in the cpufreq
core.

[rjw: Fix from Yinghai Lu folded in]
Signed-off-by: NLukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: NMyungjoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Chapter 14 of Documentation/CodingStyle says:

The preferred form for passing a size of a struct is the following:

	p = kmalloc(sizeof(*p), ...);

The alternative form where struct name is spelled out hurts
readability and introduces an opportunity for a bug when the pointer
variable type is changed but the corresponding sizeof that is passed
to a memory allocator is not.

This wasn't followed consistently in drivers/cpufreq, let's make it
more consistent by always following this rule.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

They are called policy, cur_policy, new_policy, data, etc.  Just call
them policy wherever possible.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

This patch addresses the following issues in the header files in the
cpufreq core:
 - Include headers in ascending order, so that we don't add same
   many times by mistake.
 - <asm/> must be included after <linux/>, so that they override
   whatever they need to.
 - Remove unnecessary includes.
 - Don't include files already included by cpufreq.h or
   cpufreq_governor.h.

[rjw: Changelog]
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The caller of cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() already has a pointer to the
policy structure and there is no need to look it up again in
cpufreq_add_policy_cpu().  Let's pass it directly.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The only case triggering a jump to the err_out_unregister label in
__cpufreq_add_dev() is when cpufreq_add_dev_interface() fails.
However, if cpufreq_add_dev_interface() fails, it calls kobject_put()
for the policy kobject in its error code path and since that causes
the kobject's refcount to become 0, the additional kobject_put() for
the same kobject under err_out_unregister and the
wait_for_completion() following it are pointless, so drop them.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

The cpufreq core is a little inconsistent in the way it uses the
driver module refcount.

Namely, if __cpufreq_add_dev() is called for a CPU that doesn't
share the policy object with any other CPUs, the driver module
refcount it grabs to start with will be dropped by it before
returning and will be equal to whatever it had been before that
function was invoked.

However, if the given CPU does share the policy object with other
CPUs, either cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() is called to link the new CPU
to the existing policy, or cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() is used to link
the other CPUs sharing the policy with it to the just created policy
object.  In that case, because both cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() and
cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() call cpufreq_cpu_get() for the given
policy (the latter possibly many times) without the balancing
cpufreq_cpu_put() (unless there is an error), the driver module
refcount will be left by __cpufreq_add_dev() with a nonzero value
(different from the initial one).

To remove that inconsistency make cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() execute
cpufreq_cpu_put() for the given policy before returning, which
decrements the driver module refcount so that it will be equal to its
initial value after __cpufreq_add_dev() returns.  Also remove the
cpufreq_cpu_get() call from cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(), since both the
policy refcount and the driver module refcount are nonzero when it is
called and they don't need to be bumped up by it.

Accordingly, drop the cpufreq_cpu_put() from __cpufreq_remove_dev(),
since it is only necessary to balance the cpufreq_cpu_get() called
by cpufreq_add_policy_cpu() or cpufreq_add_dev_symlink().
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>