From aa439248ab71bcd2d26a01708dead4dd56616499 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:56:14 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Use locking in intel_pstate_resume() Theoretically, intel_pstate_resume() may be executed in parallel with intel_pstate_set_policy(), if the latter is invoked via cpufreq_update_policy() as a result of a notification, so use intel_pstate_limits_lock in there too to avoid race conditions. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki Acked-by: Srinivas Pandruvada --- drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 10 +++++++++- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c index 0d01cb2..dc457ab 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c @@ -914,12 +914,20 @@ static int intel_pstate_hwp_save_state(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) static int intel_pstate_resume(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) { + int ret; + if (!hwp_active) return 0; + mutex_lock(&intel_pstate_limits_lock); + all_cpu_data[policy->cpu]->epp_policy = 0; - return intel_pstate_hwp_set_policy(policy); + ret = intel_pstate_hwp_set_policy(policy); + + mutex_unlock(&intel_pstate_limits_lock); + + return ret; } static void intel_pstate_hwp_set_online_cpus(void) -- 2.7.4