lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cpufreq: skip cpufreq resume if it's not suspended
On 02/02/2018 03:54 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 9:53:14 PM CET Bo Yan wrote:
>>
>> On 01/23/2018 06:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 10:57:55 PM CET Bo Yan wrote:
>>>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> index 41d148af7748..95b1c4afe14e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>> @@ -1680,6 +1680,10 @@ void cpufreq_resume(void)
>>>> if (!cpufreq_driver)
>>>> return;
>>>>
>>>> + if (unlikely(!cpufreq_suspended)) {
>>>> + pr_warn("%s: resume after failing suspend\n", __func__);
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> cpufreq_suspended = false;
>>>>
>>>> if (!has_target() && !cpufreq_driver->resume)
>>>>
>>> Good catch, but rather than doing this it would be better to avoid
>>> calling cpufreq_resume() at all if cpufreq_suspend() has not been called.
>> Yes, I thought about that, but there is no good way to skip over it
>> without introducing another flag. cpufreq_resume is called by
>> dpm_resume, cpufreq_suspend is called by dpm_suspend. In the failure
>> case, dpm_resume is called, but dpm_suspend is not. So on a higher level
>> it's already unbalanced.
>>
>> One possibility is to rely on the pm_transition flag. So something like:
>>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c
>> index dc259d20c967..8469e6fc2b2c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c
>> @@ -842,6 +842,7 @@ static void async_resume(void *data, async_cookie_t
>> cookie)
>> void dpm_resume(pm_message_t state)
>> {
>> struct device *dev;
>> + bool suspended = (pm_transition.event != PM_EVENT_ON);
>> ktime_t starttime = ktime_get();
>>
>> trace_suspend_resume(TPS("dpm_resume"), state.event, true);
>> @@ -885,7 +886,8 @@ void dpm_resume(pm_message_t state)
>> async_synchronize_full();
>> dpm_show_time(starttime, state, NULL);
>>
>> - cpufreq_resume();
>> + if (likely(suspended))
>> + cpufreq_resume();
>> trace_suspend_resume(TPS("dpm_resume"), state.event, false);
>> }
>
> I was thinking about something else.
>
> Anyway, I think your original patch is OK too, but without printing the
> message. Just combine the cpufreq_suspended check with the cpufreq_driver
> one and the unlikely() thing is not necessary.
>

I rather have this fixed in the dpm_suspend/resume() code. This is just
masking the first issue that's being caused by unbalanced error
handling. If that means adding flags in dpm_suspend/resume() then that's
what we should do right now and clean it up later if it can be improved.
Making cpufreq more messy doesn't seem like the right answer.

Thanks,
Saravana


--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-02 20:35    [W:0.060 / U:0.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site