On 03/13/2014 05:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 03:14:51 PM Patrik Lundquist wrote: >> On 12 March 2014 12:42, Patrik Lundquist <patrik.lundquist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 12 March 2014 00:07, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> So Patrik, please test this one (resending, so that it gets to linux-pm): >>> >>> Will do. Might take a couple of days. >> >> Come to think of it, there's not much to test besides verifying that >> cpufreq_driver->get() isn't called like before (i.e. no need to test >> on the server). >> >> So I inserted pr_err()s and they aren't printed when booting my Intel >> Xeon CPU E3-1240 V2 while the intel_pstate driver still is used. >> >> The patch works for me. > > Awesome, thanks! Appended again with a proper changelog and tags. > > Dirk, please let me know if you're fine with it. > > Rafael > > > --- > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: cpufreq: Skip current frequency initialization for ->setpolicy drivers > > After commit da60ce9f2fac (cpufreq: call cpufreq_driver->get() after > calling ->init()) __cpufreq_add_dev() sometimes fails for CPUs handled > by intel_pstate, because that driver may return 0 from its ->get() > callback if it has not run long enough to collect enough samples on the > given CPU. That didn't happen before commit da60ce9f2fac which added > policy->cur initialization to __cpufreq_add_dev() to help reduce code > duplication in other cpufreq drivers. > > However, the code added by commit da60ce9f2fac need not be executed > for cpufreq drivers having the ->setpolicy callback defined, because > the subsequent invocation of cpufreq_set_policy() will use that > callback to initialize the policy anyway and it doesn't need > policy->cur to be initialized upfront. The analogous code in > cpufreq_update_policy() is also unnecessary for cpufreq drivers > having ->setpolicy set and may be skipped for them as well. > > Since intel_pstate provides ->setpolicy, skipping the upfront > policy->cur initialization for cpufreq drivers with that callback > set will cover intel_pstate and the problem it's been having after > commit da60ce9f2fac will be addressed. > > Fixes: da60ce9f2fac (cpufreq: call cpufreq_driver->get() after calling ->init()) > References: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=71931 > Reported-and-tested-by: Patrik Lundquist <patrik.lundquist@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: 3.13+ <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 3.13+ > --- Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1129,7 +1129,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct devi > per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, j) = policy; > write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags); > > - if (cpufreq_driver->get) { > + if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) { > policy->cur = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu); > if (!policy->cur) { > pr_err("%s: ->get() failed\n", __func__); > @@ -2143,7 +2143,7 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int c > * BIOS might change freq behind our back > * -> ask driver for current freq and notify governors about a change > */ > - if (cpufreq_driver->get) { > + if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) { > new_policy.cur = cpufreq_driver->get(cpu); > if (!policy->cur) { > pr_debug("Driver did not initialize current freq"); > -- 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
