linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: stats: Remove redundant cpufreq_cpu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:36:57 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: stats: Remove redundant cpufreq_cpu_get() call

On 26 February 2014 09:08, Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> __cpufreq_stats_create_table always gets pass the valid and real policy
> struct. So, there's no need to call cpufreq_cpu_get() to get the policy
> again.
>
> Change-Id: I0136b3e67018ee3af2335906407f55d8c6219f71

??

> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
> ---
>
> Viresh/Rafael,
>
> These 3 patches is the approximate code I have in mind.
>
> Approximate because:
> * I inserted one question as a comment into the code.
> * If the patch doesn't have any bugs, the plan is to remove
>   cpufreq_generic_get() and references to it.
>
> This takes care of the "don't advertise before it's ready for use" rule.
>
> Viresh,
>
> I think the locking updates needs to be done in addition to this.
>
> Regards,
> Saravana
>
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c | 12 +-----------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> index 5793e14..e4bd27f 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> @@ -185,7 +185,6 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  {
>         unsigned int i, j, count = 0, ret = 0;
>         struct cpufreq_stats *stat;
> -       struct cpufreq_policy *current_policy;
>         unsigned int alloc_size;
>         unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu;
>         if (per_cpu(cpufreq_stats_table, cpu))
> @@ -194,13 +193,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>         if ((stat) == NULL)
>                 return -ENOMEM;
>
> -       current_policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> -       if (current_policy == NULL) {
> -               ret = -EINVAL;
> -               goto error_get_fail;
> -       }
> -
> -       ret = sysfs_create_group(&current_policy->kobj, &stats_attr_group);
> +       ret = sysfs_create_group(&policy->kobj, &stats_attr_group);
>         if (ret)
>                 goto error_out;
>
> @@ -243,11 +236,8 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>         stat->last_time = get_jiffies_64();
>         stat->last_index = freq_table_get_index(stat, policy->cur);
>         spin_unlock(&cpufreq_stats_lock);
> -       cpufreq_cpu_put(current_policy);
>         return 0;
>  error_out:
> -       cpufreq_cpu_put(current_policy);
> -error_get_fail:
>         kfree(stat);
>         per_cpu(cpufreq_stats_table, cpu) = NULL;
>         return ret;

I was damn sure that this wasn't a waste of time. This was some meaningful
code when I visited it earlier. And we absolutely required a new
cpufreq_cpu_get()..

Reason: Earlier tables were created for this notifier: CPUFREQ_NOTIFY and
it used to come with another changed copy of 'policy' and so we were required
to get the real copy of policy to get to the right kobj.

But recently I have simplified stuff there and these tables are now added with
CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and so this replication isn't required anymore.

So, Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>

While you are at it please get this part into __cpufreq_stats_create_table()
routine:

table = cpufreq_frequency_get_table(cpu);
if (!table)
    return 0;

As it is replicated at two places currently.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/