Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Patch v3 3/6] cpufreq: qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add dcvs interrupt support | From | Thara Gopinath <> | Date | Fri, 9 Jul 2021 11:37:19 -0400 |
| |
On 7/9/21 2:46 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 08-07-21, 08:06, Thara Gopinath wrote: >> static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) >> { >> struct platform_device *pdev = cpufreq_get_driver_data(); >> @@ -370,6 +480,10 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) >> dev_warn(cpu_dev, "failed to enable boost: %d\n", ret); >> } >> >> + ret = qcom_cpufreq_hw_lmh_init(policy, index); > > You missed unregistering EM here (which is also missing from exit, > which you need to fix first in a separate patch).
Hi!
So how exactly do you do this? I checked other users of the api and I do not see any free. I would say if needed, it should be a separate patch and outside of this series.
> >> + if (ret) >> + goto error; >> + >> return 0; >> error: >> kfree(data); >> @@ -389,6 +503,10 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) >> >> dev_pm_opp_remove_all_dynamic(cpu_dev); >> dev_pm_opp_of_cpumask_remove_table(policy->related_cpus); >> + if (data->lmh_dcvs_irq > 0) { >> + devm_free_irq(cpu_dev, data->lmh_dcvs_irq, data); > > Why using devm variants here and while requesting the irq ? > >> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&data->lmh_dcvs_poll_work); >> + } > > Please move this to qcom_cpufreq_hw_lmh_exit() or something.
Ok.
> > Now with sequence of disabling interrupt, etc, I see a potential > problem. > > CPU0 CPU1 > > qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_exit() > -> devm_free_irq(); > qcom_lmh_dcvs_poll() > -> qcom_lmh_dcvs_notify() > -> enable_irq() > > -> cancel_delayed_work_sync(); > > > What will happen if enable_irq() gets called after freeing the irq ? > Not sure, but it looks like you will hit this then from manage.c: > > WARN(!desc->irq_data.chip, KERN_ERR "enable_irq before > setup/request_irq: irq %u\n", irq)) > > ? > > You got a chicken n egg problem :)
Yes indeed! But also it is a very rare chicken and egg problem. The scenario here is that the cpus are busy and running load causing a thermal overrun and lmh is engaged. At the same time for this issue to be hit the cpu is trying to exit/disable cpufreq. Calling cancel_delayed_work_sync first could solve this issue, right ? cancel_delayed_work_sync guarantees the work not to be pending even if it requeues itself on return. So once the delayed work is cancelled, the interrupts can be safely disabled. Thoughts ?
>
-- Warm Regards Thara (She/Her/Hers)
| |