| Message ID | 579689469ed8a7dfd68dcbb41e9191472799a326.1624266901.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cpufreq: cppc: Add support for frequency invariance | expand |
Hi, On Monday 21 Jun 2021 at 14:49:34 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote: > It's a classic example of memleak, we allocate something, we fail and > never free the resources. > > Make sure we free all resources on policy ->init() failures. > > Fixes: a28b2bfc099c ("cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list") This is on me, thanks for the fix! Might be better for this to be separate from the series, but I suppose all will be going in 5.14 anyway. > Tested-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > index be4f62e2c5f1..35b8ae66d1fb 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > @@ -256,6 +256,16 @@ static struct cppc_cpudata *cppc_cpufreq_get_cpu_data(unsigned int cpu) > return NULL; > } > > +static void cppc_cpufreq_put_cpu_data(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > +{ > + struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data = policy->driver_data; > + > + list_del(&cpu_data->node); > + free_cpumask_var(cpu_data->shared_cpu_map); > + kfree(cpu_data); > + policy->driver_data = NULL; > +} > + > static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > { > unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu; > @@ -309,7 +319,8 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > default: > pr_debug("Unsupported CPU co-ord type: %d\n", > policy->shared_type); > - return -EFAULT; > + ret = -EFAULT; > + goto out; > } > > /* > @@ -324,10 +335,14 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > cpu_data->perf_ctrls.desired_perf = caps->highest_perf; > > ret = cppc_set_perf(cpu, &cpu_data->perf_ctrls); > - if (ret) > - pr_debug("Err setting perf value:%d on CPU:%d. ret:%d\n", > - caps->highest_perf, cpu, ret); > + if (!ret) > + return 0; > > + pr_debug("Err setting perf value:%d on CPU:%d. ret:%d\n", > + caps->highest_perf, cpu, ret); > + Nit: I would have preferred the more traditional: if (ret) { pr_debug(); goto out; } return 0; It's always easier to read. Thanks, Ionela. > +out: > + cppc_cpufreq_put_cpu_data(policy); > return ret; > } > > @@ -345,12 +360,7 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > pr_debug("Err setting perf value:%d on CPU:%d. ret:%d\n", > caps->lowest_perf, cpu, ret); > > - /* Remove CPU node from list and free driver data for policy */ > - free_cpumask_var(cpu_data->shared_cpu_map); > - list_del(&cpu_data->node); > - kfree(policy->driver_data); > - policy->driver_data = NULL; > - > + cppc_cpufreq_put_cpu_data(policy); > return 0; > } > > -- > 2.31.1.272.g89b43f80a514 >
On 23-06-21, 14:44, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > Might be better for this to be separate from the series, but I suppose > all will be going in 5.14 anyway. Right, it is easier to keep this all together for reviews. > Nit: I would have preferred the more traditional: > > if (ret) { > pr_debug(); > goto out; > } > > return 0; > > It's always easier to read. Sure. -- viresh
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c index be4f62e2c5f1..35b8ae66d1fb 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c @@ -256,6 +256,16 @@ static struct cppc_cpudata *cppc_cpufreq_get_cpu_data(unsigned int cpu) return NULL; } +static void cppc_cpufreq_put_cpu_data(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) +{ + struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data = policy->driver_data; + + list_del(&cpu_data->node); + free_cpumask_var(cpu_data->shared_cpu_map); + kfree(cpu_data); + policy->driver_data = NULL; +} + static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) { unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu; @@ -309,7 +319,8 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) default: pr_debug("Unsupported CPU co-ord type: %d\n", policy->shared_type); - return -EFAULT; + ret = -EFAULT; + goto out; } /* @@ -324,10 +335,14 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) cpu_data->perf_ctrls.desired_perf = caps->highest_perf; ret = cppc_set_perf(cpu, &cpu_data->perf_ctrls); - if (ret) - pr_debug("Err setting perf value:%d on CPU:%d. ret:%d\n", - caps->highest_perf, cpu, ret); + if (!ret) + return 0; + pr_debug("Err setting perf value:%d on CPU:%d. ret:%d\n", + caps->highest_perf, cpu, ret); + +out: + cppc_cpufreq_put_cpu_data(policy); return ret; } @@ -345,12 +360,7 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) pr_debug("Err setting perf value:%d on CPU:%d. ret:%d\n", caps->lowest_perf, cpu, ret); - /* Remove CPU node from list and free driver data for policy */ - free_cpumask_var(cpu_data->shared_cpu_map); - list_del(&cpu_data->node); - kfree(policy->driver_data); - policy->driver_data = NULL; - + cppc_cpufreq_put_cpu_data(policy); return 0; }
It's a classic example of memleak, we allocate something, we fail and never free the resources. Make sure we free all resources on policy ->init() failures. Fixes: a28b2bfc099c ("cppc_cpufreq: replace per-cpu data array with a list") Tested-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) -- 2.31.1.272.g89b43f80a514