| 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: <Z7MLbYpQ0juUU9Lv@BLRRASHENOY1.amd.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 15:41:57 +0530
From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>
To: Mario Limonciello <superm1@...nel.org>
Cc: Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@....com>,
Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>,
"open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:CPU FREQUENCY SCALING FRAMEWORK" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/17] cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut: Use _free macro to free
put policy
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 06:52:33PM -0600, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
>
> Using a scoped cleanup macro simplifies cleanup code.
>
> Reviewed-by: Dhananjay Ugwekar <dhananjay.ugwekar@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
LGTM.
Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@....com>
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut.c | 33 ++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut.c
> index ba3e06f349c6d..9f790c7254d52 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate-ut.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/moduleparam.h>
> #include <linux/fs.h>
> +#include <linux/cleanup.h>
>
> #include <acpi/cppc_acpi.h>
>
> @@ -127,11 +128,12 @@ static void amd_pstate_ut_check_perf(u32 index)
> u32 highest_perf = 0, nominal_perf = 0, lowest_nonlinear_perf = 0, lowest_perf = 0;
> u64 cap1 = 0;
> struct cppc_perf_caps cppc_perf;
> - struct cpufreq_policy *policy = NULL;
> struct amd_cpudata *cpudata = NULL;
> union perf_cached cur_perf;
>
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = NULL;
> +
> policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> if (!policy)
> break;
> @@ -142,7 +144,7 @@ static void amd_pstate_ut_check_perf(u32 index)
> if (ret) {
> amd_pstate_ut_cases[index].result = AMD_PSTATE_UT_RESULT_FAIL;
> pr_err("%s cppc_get_perf_caps ret=%d error!\n", __func__, ret);
> - goto skip_test;
> + return;
> }
>
> highest_perf = cppc_perf.highest_perf;
> @@ -154,7 +156,7 @@ static void amd_pstate_ut_check_perf(u32 index)
> if (ret) {
> amd_pstate_ut_cases[index].result = AMD_PSTATE_UT_RESULT_FAIL;
> pr_err("%s read CPPC_CAP1 ret=%d error!\n", __func__, ret);
> - goto skip_test;
> + return;
> }
>
> highest_perf = AMD_CPPC_HIGHEST_PERF(cap1);
> @@ -167,7 +169,7 @@ static void amd_pstate_ut_check_perf(u32 index)
> if (highest_perf != cur_perf.highest_perf && !cpudata->hw_prefcore) {
> pr_err("%s cpu%d highest=%d %d highest perf doesn't match\n",
> __func__, cpu, highest_perf, cpudata->perf.highest_perf);
> - goto skip_test;
> + return;
> }
> if (nominal_perf != cur_perf.nominal_perf ||
> (lowest_nonlinear_perf != cur_perf.lowest_nonlinear_perf) ||
> @@ -177,7 +179,7 @@ static void amd_pstate_ut_check_perf(u32 index)
> __func__, cpu, nominal_perf, cpudata->perf.nominal_perf,
> lowest_nonlinear_perf, cpudata->perf.lowest_nonlinear_perf,
> lowest_perf, cpudata->perf.lowest_perf);
> - goto skip_test;
> + return;
> }
>
> if (!((highest_perf >= nominal_perf) &&
> @@ -188,15 +190,11 @@ static void amd_pstate_ut_check_perf(u32 index)
> pr_err("%s cpu%d highest=%d >= nominal=%d > lowest_nonlinear=%d > lowest=%d > 0, the formula is incorrect!\n",
> __func__, cpu, highest_perf, nominal_perf,
> lowest_nonlinear_perf, lowest_perf);
> - goto skip_test;
> + return;
> }
> - cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> }
>
> amd_pstate_ut_cases[index].result = AMD_PSTATE_UT_RESULT_PASS;
> - return;
> -skip_test:
> - cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -207,10 +205,11 @@ static void amd_pstate_ut_check_perf(u32 index)
> static void amd_pstate_ut_check_freq(u32 index)
> {
> int cpu = 0;
> - struct cpufreq_policy *policy = NULL;
> struct amd_cpudata *cpudata = NULL;
>
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) = NULL;
> +
> policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> if (!policy)
> break;
> @@ -224,14 +223,14 @@ static void amd_pstate_ut_check_freq(u32 index)
> pr_err("%s cpu%d max=%d >= nominal=%d > lowest_nonlinear=%d > min=%d > 0, the formula is incorrect!\n",
> __func__, cpu, policy->cpuinfo.max_freq, cpudata->nominal_freq,
> cpudata->lowest_nonlinear_freq, policy->cpuinfo.min_freq);
> - goto skip_test;
> + return;
> }
>
> if (cpudata->lowest_nonlinear_freq != policy->min) {
> amd_pstate_ut_cases[index].result = AMD_PSTATE_UT_RESULT_FAIL;
> pr_err("%s cpu%d cpudata_lowest_nonlinear_freq=%d policy_min=%d, they should be equal!\n",
> __func__, cpu, cpudata->lowest_nonlinear_freq, policy->min);
> - goto skip_test;
> + return;
> }
>
> if (cpudata->boost_supported) {
> @@ -243,20 +242,16 @@ static void amd_pstate_ut_check_freq(u32 index)
> pr_err("%s cpu%d policy_max=%d should be equal cpu_max=%d or cpu_nominal=%d !\n",
> __func__, cpu, policy->max, policy->cpuinfo.max_freq,
> cpudata->nominal_freq);
> - goto skip_test;
> + return;
> }
> } else {
> amd_pstate_ut_cases[index].result = AMD_PSTATE_UT_RESULT_FAIL;
> pr_err("%s cpu%d must support boost!\n", __func__, cpu);
> - goto skip_test;
> + return;
> }
> - cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> }
>
> amd_pstate_ut_cases[index].result = AMD_PSTATE_UT_RESULT_PASS;
> - return;
> -skip_test:
> - cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> }
>
> static int amd_pstate_set_mode(enum amd_pstate_mode mode)
> --
> 2.43.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists