Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Jun 2022 11:13:06 +0200 | From | Ansuel Smith <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] PM / devfreq: Fix cpufreq passive unregister erroring on PROBE_DEFER |
| |
On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 03:48:03PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > On 22. 6. 15. 08:09, 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 | 39 +++++++++++++----------------- > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c b/drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c > > index 72c67979ebe1..95de336f20d5 100644 > > --- a/drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c > > +++ b/drivers/devfreq/governor_passive.c > > @@ -34,6 +34,20 @@ get_parent_cpu_data(struct devfreq_passive_data *p_data, > > return NULL; > > } > > > > +static void delete_parent_cpu_data(struct devfreq_passive_data *p_data) > > +{ > > + struct devfreq_cpu_data *parent_cpu_data, *tmp; > > + > > Need to add the validation checking of argument as following: > > if (!p_data) > return; >
Considering this is called only by cpufreq_passive_unregister_notifier and cpufreq_passive_unregister_notifier is called only by devfreq_passive_event_handler where the check is already done, isn't that redundant. We should never reach delete_parent_cpu_data with no p_data. (Unless you want to use that function somewhere else)
> > + 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); > > + } > > +} > > + > > static unsigned long get_target_freq_by_required_opp(struct device *p_dev, > > struct opp_table *p_opp_table, > > struct opp_table *opp_table, > > @@ -222,8 +236,7 @@ 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; > > + int ret; > > > > if (p_data->nb.notifier_call) { > > ret = cpufreq_unregister_notifier(&p_data->nb, > > @@ -232,27 +245,9 @@ 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_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); > > - } > > + delete_parent_cpu_data(p_data); > > > > - return ret; > > + return 0; > > } > > > > static int cpufreq_passive_register_notifier(struct devfreq *devfreq) > > > -- > Best Regards, > Samsung Electronics > Chanwoo Choi
-- Ansuel
| |