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  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:	Thu, 7 Aug 2014 16:32:27 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@...gle.com>,
	"Srivatsa S . Bhat" <srivatsa@....edu>,
	"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-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] cpufreq: Properly handle physical CPU hot-add/hot-remove

On 25 July 2014 06:37, Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> When CPUs are physically added/removed, its cpuX sysfs directory is
> dynamically added/removed. To handle this correctly, the cpufreq sysfs
> nodes also need to be added/removed dynamically.

Hmm, in that case why should we take this thread? I mean, if we do need
to add/remove sysfs links or move kobjects around, what would we achieve
with this patchset?

> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index d9fc6e5..97edf05 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpufreq_policy *, cpufreq_cpu_data_fallback);
>  static DEFINE_RWLOCK(cpufreq_driver_lock);
>  DEFINE_MUTEX(cpufreq_governor_lock);
>  static LIST_HEAD(cpufreq_policy_list);
> +static cpumask_t has_symlink;
>
>  /* This one keeps track of the previously set governor of a removed CPU */
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(char[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN], cpufreq_cpu_governor);
> @@ -865,7 +866,10 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>         unsigned int j;
>         int ret = 0;
>
> -       for_each_cpu(j, policy->related_cpus) {
> +       /* Only some of the related CPUs might be present. So, create
> +        * symlinks only for those.
> +        */

Proper styles please.

> +       for_each_cpu_and(j, policy->related_cpus, cpu_present_mask) {
>                 struct device *cpu_dev;
>
>                 if (j == policy->kobj_cpu)
> @@ -877,6 +881,7 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>                                         "cpufreq");
>                 if (ret)
>                         break;
> +               cpumask_set_cpu(j, &has_symlink);
>         }
>         return ret;
>  }
> @@ -1101,9 +1106,6 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
>         unsigned long flags;
>         bool recover_policy = cpufreq_suspended;
>
> -       if (cpu_is_offline(cpu))
> -               return 0;
> -

Why?

>         pr_debug("adding CPU %u\n", cpu);
>
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> @@ -1111,7 +1113,19 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
>          * CPU because it is in the same boat. */
>         policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
>         if (policy) {
> -               if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus))
> +               /* If a CPU gets physically plugged in after one or more of
> +                * its related CPUs are ONLINE, we need to create a symlink
> +                * for it since it wouldn't have been created when the policy
> +                * was initialized. Do this as soon as it's plugged in.
> +                */
> +               if (sif && !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &has_symlink)) {

Why check for sif?

> +                       ret = sysfs_create_link(&dev->kobj, &policy->kobj,
> +                                               "cpufreq");
> +                       if (!ret)
> +                               cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &has_symlink);
> +               }
> +

Move all this to cpufreq_add_policy_cpu()..

> +               if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus) && cpu_online(cpu))
>                         ret = cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(policy, cpu, dev);
>                 else
>                         ret = 0;
> @@ -1120,6 +1134,9 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
>         }
>  #endif
>
> +       if (cpu_is_offline(cpu))
> +               return 0;
> +

Don't know why we moved it here.. cpufreq_add_dev will only be called for
online CPUs..

>         if (!down_read_trylock(&cpufreq_rwsem))
>                 return 0;
>
> @@ -1303,25 +1320,24 @@ static int cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>                                            unsigned int old_cpu)
>  {
>         struct device *cpu_dev;
> +       unsigned int new_cpu;
>         int ret;
>
>         /* first sibling now owns the new sysfs dir */
> -       cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_any_but(policy->cpus, old_cpu));
> +       for_each_cpu_and(new_cpu, policy->related_cpus, cpu_present_mask)
> +               if (new_cpu != old_cpu)
> +                       break;
> +       cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(new_cpu);
>
>         sysfs_remove_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
>         ret = kobject_move(&policy->kobj, &cpu_dev->kobj);
>         if (ret) {
>                 pr_err("%s: Failed to move kobj: %d\n", __func__, ret);
> -
> -               down_write(&policy->rwsem);
> -               cpumask_set_cpu(old_cpu, policy->cpus);
> -               up_write(&policy->rwsem);
> -
>                 ret = sysfs_create_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, &policy->kobj,
>                                         "cpufreq");
> -
>                 return -EINVAL;
>         }
> +       cpumask_clear_cpu(new_cpu, &has_symlink);
>         policy->kobj_cpu = cpu_dev->id;
>
>         return cpu_dev->id;
> @@ -1407,8 +1423,12 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish(struct device *dev,
>         cpus = cpumask_weight(policy->cpus);
>         up_read(&policy->rwsem);
>
> -       if (cpu != policy->kobj_cpu)
> +       if (cpu != policy->kobj_cpu) {
>                 sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
> +               cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &has_symlink);
> +       } else {
> +               cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(policy, cpu);
> +       }

This has_symlink thing has made it much more complicated..
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists