| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20201012061335.nht4hnn7kdjupakn@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:43:35 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, sudeep.holla@....com, thierry.reding@...il.com,
jonathanh@...dia.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ksitaraman@...dia.com,
bbasu@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: tegra194: Fix unlisted boot freq warning
On 08-10-20, 18:31, Sumit Gupta wrote:
> Warning coming during boot because the boot freq set by bootloader
> gets filtered out due to big freq steps while creating freq_table.
> Fix this by setting closest higher frequency from freq_table.
> Warning:
> cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU0: Running at unlisted freq
> cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU0: Unlisted initial frequency changed
>
> These warning messages also come during hotplug online of non-boot
> CPU's while exiting from 'Suspend-to-RAM'. This happens because
> during exit from 'Suspend-to-RAM', some time is taken to restore
> last software requested CPU frequency written in register before
> entering suspend.
And who does this restoration ?
> To fix this, adding online hook to wait till the
> current frequency becomes equal or close to the last requested
> frequency.
>
> Fixes: df320f89359c ("cpufreq: Add Tegra194 cpufreq driver")
> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/tegra194-cpufreq.c | 86 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra194-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra194-cpufreq.c
> index d250e49..cc28b1e3 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra194-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra194-cpufreq.c
> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
> #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> #include <linux/delay.h>
> #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> +#include <linux/iopoll.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/of.h>
> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> @@ -21,7 +22,6 @@
> #define KHZ 1000
> #define REF_CLK_MHZ 408 /* 408 MHz */
> #define US_DELAY 500
> -#define US_DELAY_MIN 2
> #define CPUFREQ_TBL_STEP_HZ (50 * KHZ * KHZ)
> #define MAX_CNT ~0U
>
> @@ -249,17 +249,22 @@ static unsigned int tegra194_get_speed(u32 cpu)
> static int tegra194_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> {
> struct tegra194_cpufreq_data *data = cpufreq_get_driver_data();
> - u32 cpu;
> + u32 cpu = policy->cpu;
> + int ret;
> u32 cl;
>
> - smp_call_function_single(policy->cpu, get_cpu_cluster, &cl, true);
> + if (!cpu_online(cpu))
Not required to check this.
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + ret = smp_call_function_single(cpu, get_cpu_cluster, &cl, true);
> + if (ret) {
Same as in the other patch.
> + pr_err("cpufreq: Failed to get cluster for CPU%d\n", cpu);
> + return ret;
> + }
>
> if (cl >= data->num_clusters)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - /* boot freq */
> - policy->cur = tegra194_get_speed_common(policy->cpu, US_DELAY_MIN);
> -
> /* set same policy for all cpus in a cluster */
> for (cpu = (cl * 2); cpu < ((cl + 1) * 2); cpu++)
> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
> @@ -267,7 +272,23 @@ static int tegra194_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> policy->freq_table = data->tables[cl];
> policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = TEGRA_CPUFREQ_TRANSITION_LATENCY;
>
> - return 0;
> + policy->cur = tegra194_get_speed_common(policy->cpu, US_DELAY);
> +
> + ret = cpufreq_table_validate_and_sort(policy);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + /* Are we running at unknown frequency ? */
> + ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_get_index(policy, policy->cur);
> + if (ret == -EINVAL) {
> + ret = __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, policy->cur - 1,
> + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + policy->cur = tegra194_get_speed_common(policy->cpu, US_DELAY);
cpufreq-core will do this anyway, you don't need to do it.
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> }
I wonder if I should change the pr_warn() in cpufreq-core to pr_info()
instead, will that help you guys ? Will that still be a problem ? This
is exactly same as what we do there.
> static int tegra194_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> @@ -285,6 +306,55 @@ static int tegra194_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int tegra194_cpufreq_online(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> +{
> + unsigned int interm_freq, last_set_freq;
> + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *pos;
> + u64 ndiv;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!cpu_online(policy->cpu))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* get ndiv for the last frequency request from software */
> + ret = smp_call_function_single(policy->cpu, get_cpu_ndiv, &ndiv, true);
> + if (ret) {
> + pr_err("cpufreq: Failed to get ndiv for CPU%d\n", policy->cpu);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry(pos, policy->freq_table) {
> + if (pos->driver_data == ndiv) {
> + last_set_freq = pos->frequency;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + policy->cur = tegra194_get_speed_common(policy->cpu, US_DELAY);
> + interm_freq = policy->cur;
> +
> + /*
> + * It takes some time to restore the previous frequency while
> + * turning-on non-boot cores during exit from SC7(Suspend-to-RAM).
> + * So, wait till it reaches the previous value and timeout if the
> + * time taken to reach requested freq is >100ms
> + */
> + ret = read_poll_timeout(tegra194_get_speed_common, policy->cur,
> + abs(policy->cur - last_set_freq) <= 115200, 0,
> + 100 * USEC_PER_MSEC, false, policy->cpu,
> + US_DELAY);
The firmware does this update ? Why do we need to wait for this ? I
was actually suggesting an empty tegra194_cpufreq_online() routine
here.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists