cpufreq: Clear policy->cpus bits in __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish()
This broke after a recent change "cedb70a 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: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 43c24aa..dbfe219 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1125,7 +1125,7 @@
int ret;
/* first sibling now owns the new sysfs dir */
- cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_first(policy->cpus));
+ cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_any_but(policy->cpus, old_cpu));
/* Don't touch sysfs files during light-weight tear-down */
if (frozen)
@@ -1189,12 +1189,9 @@
policy->governor->name, CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN);
#endif
- WARN_ON(lock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu));
+ lock_policy_rwsem_read(cpu);
cpus = cpumask_weight(policy->cpus);
-
- if (cpus > 1)
- cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
- unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu);
+ unlock_policy_rwsem_read(cpu);
if (cpu != policy->cpu) {
if (!frozen)
@@ -1237,9 +1234,12 @@
return -EINVAL;
}
- lock_policy_rwsem_read(cpu);
+ WARN_ON(lock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu));
cpus = cpumask_weight(policy->cpus);
- unlock_policy_rwsem_read(cpu);
+
+ if (cpus > 1)
+ cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
+ unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu);
/* If cpu is last user of policy, free policy */
if (cpus == 1) {
