Re: [RFC] pm_qos: reimplement using plists

James Bottomley
2010-06-08T15:52:16Z

On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 06:31 -0700, mark gross wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 02:39:54PM -0700, mark gross wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 12:58:08PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > A lot of the pm_qos extremal value handling is really duplicating what a
> > > priority ordered list does, just in a less efficient fashion. Simply
> > > redoing the implementation in terms of a plist gets rid of a lot of this
> > > junk (although there are several other strange things that could do with
> > > tidying up, like pm_qos_request_list has to carry the pm_qos_class with
> > > every node, simply because it doesn't get passed in to
> > > pm_qos_update_request even though every caller knows full well what
> > > parameter it's updating).
> > >
> > > I think this redo is a win independent of android, so we should do
> > > something like this now.
> > >
> > > There is one nasty that should probably be fixed in plists not open
> > > coded here: plist_first gives the highest priority value, but there's no
> > > corresponding API to give the lowest (even though you can get it from
> > > the head.nodes_list.prev) ... if the sched people are OK, I'll correct
> > > this with the final patch set.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > kernel/pm_qos_params.c | 152 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> > > 1 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 79 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/pm_qos_params.c b/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> > > index f42d3f7..241fa79 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> > > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> > > /*#define DEBUG*/
>
> snip
>
> > > @@ -251,22 +244,27 @@ void pm_qos_update_request(struct pm_qos_request_list *pm_qos_req,
> > > unsigned long flags;
> > > int pending_update = 0;
> > > s32 temp;
> > > + struct pm_qos_object *o;
> > >
> > > - if (pm_qos_req) { /*guard against callers passing in null */
> > > - spin_lock_irqsave(&pm_qos_lock, flags);
> > > - if (new_value == PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE)
> > > - temp = pm_qos_array[pm_qos_req->pm_qos_class]->default_value;
> > > - else
> > > - temp = new_value;
> > > + if (!pm_qos_req) /*guard against callers passing in null */
> > > + return;
> >
> > need a better test to see if the pm_qos_req is in the plist or not as we
> > move to a caller allocated design.
> >
>
> snip
> > > void pm_qos_remove_request(struct pm_qos_request_list *pm_qos_req)
> > > {
> > > - unsigned long flags;
> > > - int qos_class;
> > > + struct pm_qos_object *o;
> > >
> > > if (pm_qos_req == NULL)
> > > return;
> > > /* silent return to keep pcm code cleaner */
> >
> > need a way to tell if the request is in the list or not so we don't
> > crater removing a plist node that isn't in the list.
> >
> snip
> >
>
> I found that e1000e will panic on rmmod because of it attempting to
> removing of a pm_qos request that it never added.
>
> This is an ugly patch, but I think its needed for a while to clean out
> the abusers, then it can be updated to not be so noisy.
>
>
> --mgross
>
> --Signed-off-by: mark gross <markgross@thegnar.org>
>
>
>
> >From fb713f95b83ea3744c31917cfd019bf3e32349b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: markgross <markgross@thegnar.org>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 06:22:01 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH] check and complain about abuse of the api to avoid panics
>
> ---
> kernel/pm_qos_params.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/pm_qos_params.c b/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> index f1d3d23..4bded27 100644
> --- a/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> +++ b/kernel/pm_qos_params.c
> @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ void pm_qos_add_request(struct pm_qos_request_list *dep,
> int new_value;
>
> if (pm_qos_request_active(dep))
> - return;
> + return; /* already in the list */
>
> if (value == PM_QOS_DEFAULT_VALUE)
> new_value = o->default_value;
> @@ -244,6 +244,11 @@ void pm_qos_update_request(struct pm_qos_request_list *pm_qos_req,
>
> if (!pm_qos_req) /*guard against callers passing in null */
> return;
> + if (!pm_qos_request_active(pm_qos_req)) {
> + WARN(true, "pm_qos: update to an unregistered request");
> + dump_stack();
> + return;
> + }
>
> o = pm_qos_array[pm_qos_req->pm_qos_class];
>
> @@ -279,6 +284,11 @@ void pm_qos_remove_request(struct pm_qos_request_list *pm_qos_req)
> if (pm_qos_req == NULL)
> return;
> /* silent return to keep pcm code cleaner */
> + if (!pm_qos_request_active(pm_qos_req)) {
> + WARN(true, "pm_qos: removal an unregistered request");
> + dump_stack();
> + return;
> + }

Yes, that would more or less reflect current functionality. If it's the
intention of the API to silently ignore update and removal of
unregistered requests, then it should probably be done silently,
though ... otherwise we'll start to make noise where previously there
was none.

James