From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, swarren@wwwdotorg.org,
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org,
cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq: use correct values of cpus in __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish()
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:10:17 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <523161D1.9040005@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8f777cc6b41b2fed4bf71ce2adc36800353d5738.1378963070.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
On 09/12/2013 10:55 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> This broke after a recent change "cedb70a cpufreq: Split __cpufreq_remove_dev()
> into two parts" from Srivatsa..
>
> Consider a scenario where we have two CPUs in a policy (0 & 1) and we are
> removing cpu 1. On the call to __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare() we have cleared 1
> from policy->cpus and now on a call to __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish() we read
> cpumask_weight of policy->cpus, which will come as 1 and this code will behave
> as if we are removing the last cpu from policy :)
>
> Fix it by clearing cpu mask in __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish() instead of
> __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare().
>
Oops! Good catch!
That said, your fix doesn't look correct. See below.
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 14 +++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 0e11fcb..b556d46 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1175,12 +1175,9 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare(struct device *dev,
> policy->governor->name, CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN);
> #endif
>
> - WARN_ON(lock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu));
> + lock_policy_rwsem_read(cpu);
> cpus = cpumask_weight(policy->cpus);
> -
> - if (cpus > 1)
> - cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
> - unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu);
> + unlock_policy_rwsem_read(cpu);
>
> if (cpu != policy->cpu) {
> if (!frozen)
Around here, we call cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(), and if we haven't cleared
the CPU by then, there is a chance that it will nominate the same CPU that we are
taking offline. So its important to clear the CPU before that point.
> @@ -1222,9 +1219,12 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish(struct device *dev,
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - lock_policy_rwsem_read(cpu);
> + WARN_ON(lock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu));
> cpus = cpumask_weight(policy->cpus);
> - unlock_policy_rwsem_read(cpu);
> +
> + if (cpus > 1)
> + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
> + unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu);
>
Perhaps we can retain the above as a read operation, ...
> /* If cpu is last user of policy, free policy */
> if (cpus == 1) {
>
... and change this suitably (from 1 to 0 etc..) ? To add to it, it will look more
clear as well:
if (cpus == 0) {
/* No cpus in policy, so free it */
} else {
/* Restart governor */
}
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-12 6:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-12 5:25 [PATCH 0/5] cpufreq: Last minute fixes for 3.12 Viresh Kumar
2013-09-12 5:25 ` [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: Remove extra blank line Viresh Kumar
2013-09-12 8:16 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-09-12 10:08 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-09-12 5:25 ` [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq: don't break string in print statements Viresh Kumar
2013-09-12 8:11 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-09-12 5:25 ` [PATCH 3/5] cpufreq: remove __cpufreq_remove_dev() Viresh Kumar
2013-09-12 8:09 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-09-12 5:25 ` [PATCH 4/5] cpufreq: don't update policy->cpu while removing while removing other CPUs Viresh Kumar
2013-09-12 8:13 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-09-12 5:25 ` [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq: use correct values of cpus in __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish() Viresh Kumar
2013-09-12 6:40 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat [this message]
2013-09-12 6:47 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-09-12 6:56 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-09-12 7:16 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-09-12 9:21 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-09-12 10:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-12 10:43 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-09-12 10:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-12 10:49 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-09-12 18:08 ` Stephen Warren
2013-09-17 15:20 ` Stephen Warren
2013-09-17 16:18 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-09-17 18:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-09-18 4:31 ` Viresh Kumar
2013-09-12 10:05 ` [PATCH 0/5] cpufreq: Last minute fixes for 3.12 Viresh Kumar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=523161D1.9040005@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=cpufreq@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).