1. 10 10月, 2008 1 次提交
  2. 09 8月, 2008 1 次提交
  3. 31 7月, 2008 1 次提交
  4. 20 7月, 2008 1 次提交
  5. 10 6月, 2008 1 次提交
  6. 07 6月, 2008 1 次提交
  7. 30 5月, 2008 1 次提交
    • L
      [CPUFREQ] fix double unlock of cpu_policy_rwsem in drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c · dca02613
      Lothar Waßmann 提交于
      In drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c the function cpufreq_add_dev() takes the
      error exit 'err_out_unregister' from different places once with the
      'cpu_policy_rwsem' lock held, once with the lock released:
      |		if (ret)
      |			goto err_out_unregister;
      |	}
      |
      |	policy->governor = NULL; /* to assure that the starting sequence is
      |				  * run in cpufreq_set_policy */
      |
      |	/* set default policy */
      |	ret = __cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
      |	policy->user_policy.policy = policy->policy;
      |	policy->user_policy.governor = policy->governor;
      |
      |	unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu);
      |
      |	if (ret) {
      |		dprintk("setting policy failed\n");
      |		goto err_out_unregister;
      |	}
      
      This leads to the following error message in case of a failing
      __cpufreq_set_policy() call:
      =====================================
      [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
      -------------------------------------
      swapper/1 is trying to release lock (&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)) at:
      [<c01b4564>] unlock_policy_rwsem_write+0x30/0x40
      but there are no more locks to release!
      
      other info that might help us debug this:
      1 lock held by swapper/1:
       #0:  (sysdev_drivers_lock){--..}, at: [<c018fd18>] sysdev_driver_register+0x74/0x130
      
      stack backtrace:
      [<c002f588>] (dump_stack+0x0/0x14) from [<c00692fc>] (print_unlock_inbalance_bug+0xc8/0x104)
      [<c0069234>] (print_unlock_inbalance_bug+0x0/0x104) from [<c006b7ac>] (lock_release_non_nested+0xc4/0x19c)
       r6:00000028 r5:c3c1ab80 r4:c01b4564
      [<c006b6e8>] (lock_release_non_nested+0x0/0x19c) from [<c006b9e0>] (lock_release+0x15c/0x18c)
       r8:60000013 r7:00000001 r6:c01b4564 r5:c0541bb4 r4:c3c1ab80
      [<c006b884>] (lock_release+0x0/0x18c) from [<c0061ba0>] (up_write+0x24/0x30)
       r8:c0541b80 r7:00000000 r6:ffffffea r5:c3c34828 r4:c0541b8c
      [<c0061b7c>] (up_write+0x0/0x30) from [<c01b4564>] (unlock_policy_rwsem_write+0x30/0x40)
       r4:c3c34884
      [<c01b4534>] (unlock_policy_rwsem_write+0x0/0x40) from [<c01b4c40>] (cpufreq_add_dev+0x324/0x398)
      [<c01b491c>] (cpufreq_add_dev+0x0/0x398) from [<c018fd64>] (sysdev_driver_register+0xc0/0x130)
      [<c018fca4>] (sysdev_driver_register+0x0/0x130) from [<c01b3574>] (cpufreq_register_driver+0xbc/0x174)
      Signed-off-by: NLothar Waßmann <LW@KARO-electronics.de>
      Signed-off-by: NDave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
      dca02613
  8. 24 5月, 2008 1 次提交
  9. 23 5月, 2008 1 次提交
  10. 20 5月, 2008 1 次提交
  11. 29 4月, 2008 9 次提交
  12. 06 3月, 2008 3 次提交
    • S
      [CPUFREQ] fix section mismatch warnings · f6ebef30
      Sam Ravnborg 提交于
      Fix the following warnings:
      WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0xfe6711): Section mismatch in reference from the function cpufreq_unregister_driver() to the variable .cpuinit.data:cpufreq_cpu_notifier
      WARNING: vmlinux.o(.text+0xfe68af): Section mismatch in reference from the function cpufreq_register_driver() to the variable .cpuinit.data:cpufreq_cpu_notifier
      WARNING: vmlinux.o(.exit.text+0xc4fa): Section mismatch in reference from the function cpufreq_stats_exit() to the variable .cpuinit.data:cpufreq_stat_cpu_notifier
      
      The warnings were casued by references to unregister_hotcpu_notifier()
      from normal functions or exit functions.
      This is flagged by modpost as a potential error because
      it does not know that for the non HOTPLUG_CPU
      scenario the unregister_hotcpu_notifier() is a nop.
      Silence the warning by replacing the __initdata
      annotation with a __refdata annotation.
      Signed-off-by: NSam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
      Signed-off-by: NDave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>
      f6ebef30
    • D
      [CPUFREQ] Fix missing cpufreq_cpu_put() call in ->store · a07530b4
      Dave Jones 提交于
      refactor to use gotos instead of explicit exit paths
      Signed-off-by: NDave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
      a07530b4
    • D
      [CPUFREQ] Fix missing cpufreq_cpu_put() call in ->show · 0db4a8a9
      Dave Jones 提交于
      refactor to use gotos instead of explicit exit paths
      Signed-off-by: NDave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
      0db4a8a9
  13. 22 2月, 2008 1 次提交
    • B
      cpufreq: fix kobject reference count handling · 7ab47050
      Balaji Rao 提交于
      The cpufreq core should not take an extra kobject reference count for no
      reason, and then refuse to release it.  This has been reported as
      keeping machines from properly powering down all the way.
      Signed-off-by: NBalaji Rao <balajirrao@gmail.com>
      Cc: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>
      Cc: Yi Yang <yi.y.yang@intel.com>
      Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
      Cc: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
      Cc: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
      Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      Signed-off-by: NGreg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
      7ab47050
  14. 07 2月, 2008 4 次提交
  15. 30 1月, 2008 1 次提交
    • Y
      cpufreq: fix obvious condition statement error · 53391fa2
      Yi Yang 提交于
      The function __cpufreq_set_policy in file drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
      has a very obvious error:
      
              if (policy->min > data->min && policy->min > policy->max) {
                      ret = -EINVAL;
                      goto error_out;
              }
      
      This condtion statement is wrong because it returns -EINVAL only if
      policy->min is greater than policy->max (in this case,
      "policy->min > data->min" is true for ever.). In fact, it should
      return -EINVAL as well if policy->max is less than data->min.
      
      The correct condition should be:
      
      	if (policy->min > data->max || policy->max < data->min) {
      
      The following test result testifies the above conclusion:
      
      Before applying this patch:
      
      [root@yangyi-dev /]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_available_frequencies
      2394000 1596000
      [root@yangyi-dev /]# echo 1596000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      [root@yangyi-dev /]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      1596000
      [root@yangyi-dev /]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
      1596000
      [root@yangyi-dev /]# echo "2000000" > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
      -bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument
      [root@yangyi-dev /]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
      1596000
      [root@yangyi-dev /]# echo "0" > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      [root@yangyi-dev /]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      1596000
      [root@yangyi-dev /]# echo "1595000" > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      [root@yangyi-dev /]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      1596000
      [root@yangyi-dev /]#
      
      After applying this patch:
      
      [root@yangyi-dev /]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_available_frequencies
      2394000 1596000
      [root@yangyi-dev /]# echo 1596000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      [root@yangyi-dev /]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      1596000
      [root@yangyi-dev /]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
      1596000
      [root@localhost /]# echo "2000000" > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
      -bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument
      [root@localhost /]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
      1596000
      [root@localhost /]# echo "0" > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      -bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument
      [root@localhost /]# echo "1595000" > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      -bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument
      [root@localhost /]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      1596000
      [root@localhost /]# echo "1596000" > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      [root@localhost /]# echo "2394000" > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      [root@localhost /]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
      2394000
      [root@localhost /]
      Signed-off-by: NYi Yang <yi.y.yang@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      Signed-off-by: NThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      53391fa2
  16. 25 1月, 2008 2 次提交
  17. 18 1月, 2008 1 次提交
    • J
      cpufreq: Initialise default governor before use · 6915719b
      Johannes Weiner 提交于
      When the cpufreq driver starts up at boot time, it calls into the default
      governor which might not be initialised yet.  This hurts when the
      governor's worker function relies on memory that is not yet set up by its
      init function.
      
      This migrates all governors from module_init() to fs_initcall() when being
      the default, as was already done in cpufreq_performance when it was the
      only possible choice.  The performance governor is always initialized early
      because it might be used as fallback even when not being the default.
      
      Fixes at least one actual oops where ondemand is the default governor and
      cpufreq_governor_dbs() uses the uninitialised kondemand_wq work-queue
      during boot-time.
      Signed-off-by: NJohannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>
      Cc: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>
      Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
      Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
      Acked-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
      Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      6915719b
  18. 18 12月, 2007 2 次提交
  19. 23 10月, 2007 2 次提交
  20. 13 10月, 2007 1 次提交
  21. 10 10月, 2007 1 次提交
    • A
      [CPUFREQ] Don't take semaphore in cpufreq_quick_get() · 9eb59573
      Andi Kleen 提交于
      I don't see any reason to take an expensive lock in cpufreq_quick_get()
      Reading policy->cur is a single atomic operation and after
      the lock is dropped again the state could change any time anyways.
      
      So don't take the lock in the first place.
      
      This also makes this function interrupt safe which is useful
      for some code of mine.
      Signed-off-by: NAndi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
      Cc: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NDave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
      9eb59573
  22. 05 10月, 2007 3 次提交