Re: [RFC] pm_qos: reimplement using plists

James Bottomley
2010-06-09T14:03:09Z

On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 19:42 -0700, mark gross wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 11:52:16AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > 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
> The intention of the API was not to silently ignore bogus updates and
> removals, even though the initial implementation implemented that :(
>
> I recommend we start making the noise and fix the API to return failure
> when updating an un-registered qos request.

OK ... Since I've effectively audited all callers not to pass in null, I
think we can now BUG on that, but the update after non reigstration can
be a warn and be nice.

> Silently failing on removal may be still needed, but a Warn-once would
> be in order.

I'd have to revisit some of the conversions then. I didn't do a check
before unregister in one of them because we did it ...

> I had planned to start making that API change before this plist stuff,
> but I think for now adding the noise and getting the plist stuff good,
> then tackling the slight API change is the order I would like to see
> things happen.
>
> what do you think?

I think clarity on the API is always good.

James