[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17cb21c6-317a-3f70-8c4d-4d8fe20604d4@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2022 15:48:03 +0900
From: Chanwoo Choi <cwchoi00@...il.com>
To: Christian 'Ansuel' Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] PM / devfreq: Fix cpufreq passive unregister
erroring on PROBE_DEFER
On 22. 6. 15. 08:09, Christian 'Ansuel' Marangi wrote:
> With the passive governor, the cpu based scaling can PROBE_DEFER due to
> the fact that CPU policy are not ready.
> The cpufreq passive unregister notifier is called both from the
> GOV_START errors and for the GOV_STOP and assume the notifier is
> successfully registred every time. With GOV_START failing it's wrong to
> loop over each possible CPU since the register path has failed for
> some CPU policy not ready. Change the logic and unregister the notifer
> based on the current allocated parent_cpu_data list to correctly handle
> errors and the governor unregister path.
>
> Fixes: a03dacb0316f ("PM / devfreq: Add cpu based scaling support to passive governor")
> Signed-off-by: Christian 'Ansuel' Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c | 39 +++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c b/drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c
> index 72c67979ebe1..95de336f20d5 100644
> --- a/drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c
> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,20 @@ get_parent_cpu_data(struct devfreq_passive_data *p_data,
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +static void delete_parent_cpu_data(struct devfreq_passive_data *p_data)
> +{
> + struct devfreq_cpu_data *parent_cpu_data, *tmp;
> +
Need to add the validation checking of argument as following:
if (!p_data)
return;
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(parent_cpu_data, tmp, &p_data->cpu_data_list, node) {
> + list_del(&parent_cpu_data->node);
> +
> + if (parent_cpu_data->opp_table)
> + dev_pm_opp_put_opp_table(parent_cpu_data->opp_table);
> +
> + kfree(parent_cpu_data);
> + }
> +}
> +
> static unsigned long get_target_freq_by_required_opp(struct device *p_dev,
> struct opp_table *p_opp_table,
> struct opp_table *opp_table,
> @@ -222,8 +236,7 @@ static int cpufreq_passive_unregister_notifier(struct devfreq *devfreq)
> {
> struct devfreq_passive_data *p_data
> = (struct devfreq_passive_data *)devfreq->data;
> - struct devfreq_cpu_data *parent_cpu_data;
> - int cpu, ret = 0;
> + int ret;
>
> if (p_data->nb.notifier_call) {
> ret = cpufreq_unregister_notifier(&p_data->nb,
> @@ -232,27 +245,9 @@ static int cpufreq_passive_unregister_notifier(struct devfreq *devfreq)
> return ret;
> }
>
> - for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> - struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> - if (!policy) {
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> - continue;
> - }
> -
> - parent_cpu_data = get_parent_cpu_data(p_data, policy);
> - if (!parent_cpu_data) {
> - cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> - continue;
> - }
> -
> - list_del(&parent_cpu_data->node);
> - if (parent_cpu_data->opp_table)
> - dev_pm_opp_put_opp_table(parent_cpu_data->opp_table);
> - kfree(parent_cpu_data);
> - cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> - }
> + delete_parent_cpu_data(p_data);
>
> - return ret;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static int cpufreq_passive_register_notifier(struct devfreq *devfreq)
--
Best Regards,
Samsung Electronics
Chanwoo Choi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists