Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Jun 2022 07:58:16 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] PM / devfreq: Fix cpufreq passive unregister erroring on PROBE_DEFER | From | Chanwoo Choi <> |
| |
On 22. 6. 14. 20:06, 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@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c | 23 ++++++----------------- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c b/drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c > index 72c67979ebe1..0188c32f5198 100644 > --- a/drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c > +++ b/drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c > @@ -222,8 +222,8 @@ 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; > + struct devfreq_cpu_data *parent_cpu_data, *tmp; > + int ret; > > if (p_data->nb.notifier_call) { > ret = cpufreq_unregister_notifier(&p_data->nb, > @@ -232,27 +232,16 @@ 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_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); > - cpufreq_cpu_put(policy); > }
I agree this patch. Just, I'd like to make the separate function to handle the removing of parent_cpu_data.
Please add new delete_parent_cpu_data() function under get_parent_cpu_data() implementation and then call delete_parent_cpu_data() in cpufreq_passive_unregister_notifier().
> > - return ret; > + return 0; > } > > static int cpufreq_passive_register_notifier(struct devfreq *devfreq)
-- Best Regards, Samsung Electronics Chanwoo Choi
| |