acpi-cpufreq: Fix an ACPI perf unregister issue
As policy->cpu may not be same in acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init() and
acpi_cpufreq_cpu_exit(). There is a risk that we use different CPU
to un/register ACPI performance. So acpi_processor_unregister_performance()
may not be able to do the cleanup work. That causes a memory leak. And
if there will be another acpi_processor_register_performance() call,
it may also fail thanks to the internal check of pr->performace.
So add a new struct acpi_cpufreq_data field, acpi_perf_cpu, to fix
this issue.
Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
[ rjw: Changelog ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
index e7fcaa6..de54ce1 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
@@ -69,6 +69,7 @@
struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
unsigned int resume;
unsigned int cpu_feature;
+ unsigned int acpi_perf_cpu;
cpumask_var_t freqdomain_cpus;
};
@@ -677,6 +678,7 @@
}
data->acpi_data = per_cpu_ptr(acpi_perf_data, cpu);
+ data->acpi_perf_cpu = cpu;
policy->driver_data = data;
if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC))
@@ -861,7 +863,7 @@
if (data) {
policy->driver_data = NULL;
acpi_processor_unregister_performance(data->acpi_data,
- policy->cpu);
+ data->acpi_perf_cpu);
free_cpumask_var(data->freqdomain_cpus);
kfree(data->freq_table);
kfree(data);