Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3 11/17] thermal: cpu_cooling: get rid of 'allowed_cpus' | From | Lukasz Luba <> | Date | Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:53:10 +0100 |
| |
Hi Viresh,
I have been testing the patch set and found one of the issues. Please see the comment below.
On 19/04/17 06:29, Viresh Kumar wrote: > 'allowed_cpus' is a copy of policy->related_cpus and can be replaced by > it directly. At some places we are only concerned about online CPUs and > policy->cpus can be used there. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 77 ++++++++++++------------------------------- > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c > index ce387f62c93e..1097162f7f8a 100644 > --- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c > +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c > @@ -74,7 +74,6 @@ struct power_table { > * frequency. > * @max_level: maximum cooling level. One less than total number of valid > * cpufreq frequencies. > - * @allowed_cpus: all the cpus involved for this cpufreq_cooling_device. > * @node: list_head to link all cpufreq_cooling_device together. > * @last_load: load measured by the latest call to cpufreq_get_requested_power() > * @time_in_idle: previous reading of the absolute time that this cpu was idle > @@ -97,7 +96,6 @@ struct cpufreq_cooling_device { > unsigned int clipped_freq; > unsigned int max_level; > unsigned int *freq_table; /* In descending order */ > - struct cpumask allowed_cpus; > struct list_head node; > u32 last_load; > u64 *time_in_idle; > @@ -161,7 +159,7 @@ static int cpufreq_thermal_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, > > mutex_lock(&cooling_list_lock); > list_for_each_entry(cpufreq_cdev, &cpufreq_cdev_list, node) { > - if (!cpumask_test_cpu(policy->cpu, &cpufreq_cdev->allowed_cpus)) > + if (policy != cpufreq_cdev->policy) The policy pointer forwarded from cpufreq_update_policy() is a local variable 'new_policy' so cannot be compared with pinned policy pointer in the cooling device. You should do the cpumask test like before: if (!cpumask_test_cpu(policy->cpu, cpufreq_cdev->policy->related_cpus))
But there is something still in the patch set... I will try to check it tomorrow.
Best regards, Lukasz
| |