On 17 July 2014 04:48, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +static int update_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int
>> cpu,
>> + struct device *cpu_dev)
>> {
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> if (WARN_ON(cpu == policy->cpu))
>> - return;
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + /* Move kobject to the new policy->cpu */
>> + ret = kobject_move(&policy->kobj, &cpu_dev->kobj);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + pr_err("%s: Failed to move kobj: %d\n", __func__, ret);
>> + return ret;
>
> Previously, we returned -EINVAL in the kobject_move() failure case. Why are
> we changing that now?
We should have preserved return value of kobject_move() earlier in
cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu() and sent that, but we returned
-EINVAL. And I realized that its more appropriate to return the error
returned by kobject_move().
>> static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface
>> *sif)
>> @@ -1154,7 +1166,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev,
>> struct subsys_interface *sif)
>> * by invoking update_policy_cpu().
>> */
>> if (recover_policy && cpu != policy->cpu)
>> - update_policy_cpu(policy, cpu);
>> + WARN_ON(update_policy_cpu(policy, cpu, dev));
>
> This is an arbitrary difference in the handling of update_policy_cpu() return
> value. Why do we want the WARN_ON() here and not in the other place?
We really can't recover in this case. We have reached here after a suspend/
resume, and probing first cpu of a non-boot cluster. And we *have* to make
it policy-master.
But in the other case, we are removing a CPU in PREPARE stage and so
we can actually fail from there and let everybody know. Though I am not
aware of anycase in which kobject_move() can fail there.
> Don't we want to recover from kobject_move() failures here as well?
In the other case, we have just removed the link from the new policy->cpu
and so we try to recover for that in failures, but don't have something
similar here.
>> else
>> policy->cpu = cpu;
>>
>> @@ -1307,38 +1319,11 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev,
>> struct subsys_interface *sif)
>> return __cpufreq_add_dev(dev, sif);
>> }
>>
>> -static int cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> - unsigned int old_cpu)
>> -{
>> - struct device *cpu_dev;
>> - int ret;
>> -
>> - /* first sibling now owns the new sysfs dir */
>> - cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_any_but(policy->cpus, old_cpu));
>> -
>> - sysfs_remove_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
>> - ret = kobject_move(&policy->kobj, &cpu_dev->kobj);
>> - if (ret) {
>> - pr_err("%s: Failed to move kobj: %d\n", __func__, ret);
>> -
>> - down_write(&policy->rwsem);
>> - cpumask_set_cpu(old_cpu, policy->cpus);
>> - up_write(&policy->rwsem);
>
> Why don't we need the above three lines in the new code?
It was probably meaningful when this was added initially, but later
some commit moved the cpumask_clear_cpu() to
__cpufreq_remove_dev_finish(). And so we don't really need to
set the cpu to policy->cpus again, as it was never cleared by this
stage..
>> -
>> - ret = sysfs_create_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, &policy->kobj,
>> - "cpufreq");
>> -
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> - }
>> -
>> - return cpu_dev->id;
>> -}
>> -
>> static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare(struct device *dev,
>> struct subsys_interface *sif)
>> {
>> unsigned int cpu = dev->id, cpus;
>> - int new_cpu, ret;
>> + int ret;
>> unsigned long flags;
>> struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>>
>> @@ -1378,14 +1363,28 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare(struct
>> device *dev,
>> if (cpu != policy->cpu) {
>> sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
>> } else if (cpus > 1) {
>> - new_cpu = cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(policy, cpu);
>> - if (new_cpu >= 0) {
>> - update_policy_cpu(policy, new_cpu);
>> + /* Nominate new CPU */
>> + int new_cpu = cpumask_any_but(policy->cpus, cpu);
>> + struct device *cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(new_cpu);
>>
>> - if (!cpufreq_suspended)
>> - pr_debug("%s: policy Kobject moved to cpu: %d
>> from: %d\n",
>> - __func__, new_cpu, cpu);
>> + sysfs_remove_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, "cpufreq");
>> + ret = update_policy_cpu(policy, new_cpu, cpu_dev);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + /*
>> + * To supress compilation warning about return value of
>> + * sysfs_create_link().
>> + */
>> + int temp;
>> +
>> + /* Create link again if we failed. */
>> + temp = sysfs_create_link(&cpu_dev->kobj, &policy->kobj,
>> + "cpufreq");
>
> And this is *ugly*.
Absolutely, Let me know what can we do to work around this.
It was like this earlier as well, just that I added a descriptive
comment this time.
--
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
