Re: [PATCH v6 2/8] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:47:15 +0530 Viresh Kumar wrote,
> On 25 July 2013 22:03, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> 
> >  /*********************************************************************
> > + *
> > BOOST                                              *
> > +
> > *********************************************************************/
> > +static int cpufreq_boost_set_sw(int state) +{
> > +       struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
> > +       struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> > +       int ret = -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +       list_for_each_entry(policy, &cpufreq_policy_list,
> > policy_list) {
> > +               freq_table =
> > cpufreq_frequency_get_table(policy->cpu);
> > +               if (freq_table) {
> > +                       ret =
> > cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy,
> > +                                                       freq_table);
> > +                       if (!ret) {
> > +                               policy->user_policy.max =
> > policy->max;
> > +                               __cpufreq_governor(policy,
> > CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS);
> > +                       }
> > +               }
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(int state)
> > +{
> > +       unsigned long flags;
> > +       int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +       if (cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled == state)
> > +               return 0;
> > +
> > +       write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> > +       cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled = state;
> > +       write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [*]
> 
> Not sure if we should leave the lock at this point of time, as we
> haven't enabled boost until now.

The problem here is with the cpufreq_driver->set_boost() call.

I tried to avoid acquiring lock at one function and release it at
another (in this case cpufreq_boost_set_sw), especially since the
__cpufreq_governor() acquires its own lock - good place for deadlock.

Is it OK for you to grab lock at one function
(cpufreq_boost_trigger_state()) and then at other function
(cpufreq_boost_set_sw) release it before calling __cpufreq_governor()
and grab it again after its completion?


> 
> If somebody tries to use this variable at this point of time, then
> it would get the wrong information about it.
> 
> > +       ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(state);
> > +       if (ret) {
> > +               write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> > +               cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled = 0;
> 
> should be:
>                     cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled = !state;

For me = 0 (or = false) is more readable. 
If you wish, I will change it to = !state.

> 
> > +               write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock,
> > flags); +
> > +               pr_err("%s: BOOST cannot %s\n", __func__,
> 
> s/BOOST cannot %s/Cannot %s BOOST

Ok.

> 
> > +                      state ? "enabled" : "disabled");
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +int cpufreq_boost_supported(void)
> > +{
> > +       if (cpufreq_driver)
> 
> This routine is always called from places where cpufreq_driver
> can't be NULL..

It is also called from thermal. And it happens that thermal is
initialized earlier.
Then "NULL pointer dereference" happens.

> 
> --contd--
> 
> > +               return cpufreq_driver->boost_supported;
> > +
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_boost_supported);
> > +
> > +int cpufreq_boost_enabled(void)
> > +{
> > +       return cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled;
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [1]

> 
> And if above check is necessary, then don't you need to check
> it here as well?

Because on thermal I check first if cpufreq_boost_supported() is true.
If boost is not supported then check for cpufreq_boost_enabled() is not
performed.

In my opinion at [1] we don't need the if (cpufreq_driver) check.
But it is up to you to decide. 

> 
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_boost_enabled);
> > +
> > +/*********************************************************************
> >   *               REGISTER / UNREGISTER CPUFREQ
> > DRIVER                *
> > *********************************************************************/
> >
> > @@ -2008,9 +2099,25 @@ int cpufreq_register_driver(struct
> > cpufreq_driver *driver_data) cpufreq_driver = driver_data;
> >         write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> >
> > +       if (cpufreq_boost_supported()) {
> > +               /*
> > +                * Check if boost driver provides function to
> > enable boost -
> 
> s/boost driver/driver

Ok.

> 
> > +                * if not, use cpufreq_boost_set_sw as default
> > +                */
> > +               if (!cpufreq_driver->set_boost)
> > +                       cpufreq_driver->set_boost =
> > cpufreq_boost_set_sw; +
> > +               ret = cpufreq_sysfs_create_file(&(boost.attr));
> 
> You don't need braces around boost.attr.

Ok.

> 
> > +               if (ret) {
> > +                       pr_err("%s: cannot register global BOOST
> > sysfs file\n",
> > +                               __func__);
> > +                       goto err_null_driver;
> > +               }
> > +       }
> > +
> >         ret = subsys_interface_register(&cpufreq_interface);
> >         if (ret)
> > -               goto err_null_driver;
> > +               goto err_boost_unreg;
> >
> >         if (!(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_STICKY)) {
> >                 int i;
> > @@ -2037,6 +2144,9 @@ int cpufreq_register_driver(struct
> > cpufreq_driver *driver_data) return 0;
> >  err_if_unreg:
> >         subsys_interface_unregister(&cpufreq_interface);
> > +err_boost_unreg:
> > +       if (cpufreq_boost_supported())
> > +               cpufreq_sysfs_remove_file(&(boost.attr));
> 
> same here.

Ok.

> 
> >  err_null_driver:
> >         write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> >         cpufreq_driver = NULL;
> > @@ -2063,6 +2173,9 @@ int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct
> > cpufreq_driver *driver) pr_debug("unregistering driver %s\n",
> > driver->name);
> >
> >         subsys_interface_unregister(&cpufreq_interface);
> > +       if (cpufreq_boost_supported())
> > +               cpufreq_sysfs_remove_file(&(boost.attr));
> 
> here too.

Ok.

> 
> > +
> >         unregister_hotcpu_notifier(&cpufreq_cpu_notifier);
> >
> >         write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> 
> > +static ssize_t scaling_available_frequencies_show(struct
> > cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > +                                                 char *buf)
> > +{
> > +       return show_available_freqs(policy, buf, 0);
> 
> s/0/false

Ok.

> 
> > +}
> 
> > +static ssize_t scaling_boost_frequencies_show(struct
> > cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > +                                             char *buf)
> > +{
> > +       return show_available_freqs(policy, buf, 1);
> 
> s/1/true

Ok.

> 
> > +}
> 
> Looks good mostly.. We Should be to get it in 3.12 :)

If we agree about above comments, I will post v7 ASAP.

-- 
Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Devel]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Forum]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux