Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH V3] cpuidle: Add a sysfs entry to disable specific C state for debug purpose.

[Yanmin Zhang <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 14:20 +0200, Valentin, Eduardo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> <hmh@hmh.eng.br> wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Mar 2012, ShuoX Liu wrote:
> >> @@ -45,6 +46,7 @@ total 0
> >>  /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpuidle/state1:
> >>  total 0
> >>  -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb  8 10:42 desc
> >> +-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb  8 10:42 disable
> >>  -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb  8 10:42 latency
> >>  -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb  8 10:42 name
> >>  -r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb  8 10:42 power
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c b/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c
> >> index 3fe41fe..1eae29a 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/sysfs.c
> >> @@ -222,6 +222,9 @@ struct cpuidle_state_attr {
> >>  #define define_one_state_ro(_name, show) \
> >>  static struct cpuidle_state_attr attr_##_name = __ATTR(_name, 0444,
> >> show, NULL)
> >>
> >> +#define define_one_state_rw(_name, show, store) \
> >> +static struct cpuidle_state_attr attr_##_name = __ATTR(_name, 0644,
> >> show, store)
> >> +
> >>  #define define_show_state_function(_name) \
> >>  static ssize_t show_state_##_name(struct cpuidle_state *state, \
> >>                        struct cpuidle_state_usage *state_usage, char *buf) \
> >> @@ -229,6 +232,19 @@ static ssize_t show_state_##_name(struct
> >> cpuidle_state *state, \
> >>       return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", state->_name);\
> >>  }
> >>
> >> +#define define_store_state_function(_name) \
> >> +static ssize_t store_state_##_name(struct cpuidle_state *state, \
> >> +             const char *buf, size_t size) \
> >> +{ \
> >> +     int value; \
> >> +     sscanf(buf, "%d", &value); \
> >> +     if (value) \
> >> +             state->disable = 1; \
> >> +     else \
> >> +             state->disable = 0; \
> >> +     return size; \
> >> +}
> >
> > Isn't this missing a check for capabilities?  Disabling cpuidle states is
> > not something random Joe (and IMHO that does mean random capability-
> > restricted Joe root) should be doing...
> >
> > Also, maybe it would be best to use one of the lib helpers to parse that
> > value, so that it will be less annoying to userspace (trim blanks, complain
> > if there is trailing junk after trimming, etc)?
> 
> I may be jumping the thread in the middle but, if it is for debug
> purposes, as states the subject, shouldn't this entry go to debugfs
> instead of sysfs? I know cpuidle has all the infrastructure there to
> simply add another sysfs entry, but if the intent is to create a debug
> capability, then I'd say it fits under debugfs instead.  Adding Greg
> KH here, as I suppose he may have strong opinion on using sysfs for
> debugging.
Thanks for the comments.

IMHO, all entries under cpuidle directory are for debug purpose. End users
shouldn't care about them. If we rewrite codes around all the entries, I strongly
agree that we need move them to debugfs.

Here, we just add a new entry under same directory. If we create it under debugfs,
we need create the similar directory tree, which is a duplicate effort. In addition,
users might be confused that why we separate the entries under sysfs and debugfs.

> 
> Of course, if you are targeting user space control over C states on
> production  systems, then it's a different thing then.
Although we say it's mostly for debug purpose used by developers, end users could
use it on production systems. For example, they might get a new machine and installed
an official Linux OS on it. They could do some tuning without recompiling the kernel
when recompiling is impossible.