Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: Don't use cpu removed during cpufreq_driver_unregister

[Viresh Kumar]

On 3 January 2013 19:55, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I took a quick look at the problem you described above, and the cpufreq code..
> If we cannot avoid calling cpufreq_add_dev() from cpufreq_remove_dev(), then I can't
> think of anything better than what your patch does.

Good :)

> BTW, off-topic, while going through that path, I think I found a memory leak
> in __cpufreq_remove_dev():
>
>         if (unlikely(cpumask_weight(data->cpus) > 1)) {
>                 for_each_cpu(j, data->cpus) {
>                         if (j == cpu)
>                                 continue;
>                         per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = NULL;
>                 }
>         }
>
> We are assigning NULL without freeing that memory.

Not really. All cpus in affected_cpus (data->cpus), share the same
policy structure.
We have already taken backup of cpufreq_cpu_data for the first cpu in "data" and
are freeing it here:

	kfree(data);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/