On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 15:03:34 +0530 Viresh Kumar wrote,
> On 26 July 2013 14:03, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 12:47:15 +0530 Viresh Kumar wrote,
> >> On 25 July 2013 22:03, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > +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?
>
> >> > + 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.
>
> Its not about readability but logic... What if boost was enabled
> earlier and we are disabling it now.. and we reach here.. We
> need to enable boost again, whereas you are disabling it.
You are right here. I will change this to = !state
>
> >> > +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.
>
> Ok.. Put a likely() around this check for cpufreq_driver..
Ok.
>
> > In my opinion at [1] we don't need the if (cpufreq_driver) check.
> > But it is up to you to decide.
>
> leave it as is.
Ok.
>
> > If we agree about above comments, I will post v7 ASAP.
>
> Don't post it ASAP, wait for few more days for others to give
> comments.. And also I haven't finished reviewing it until
> now.
Ok.
--
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
