On Friday, September 02, 2011, Jean Pihet wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thursday, September 01, 2011, Jean Pihet wrote:
> >> Hi Rafael,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> > To read the current PM QoS value for a given device we need to
> >> > make sure that the device's power.constraints object won't be
> >> > removed while we're doing that. For this reason, put the
> >> > operation under dev->power.lock and acquire the lock
> >> > around the initialization and removal of power.constraints.
> >> Ok.
> >>
> >> > Moreover, since we're using the value of power.constraints to
> >> > determine whether or not the object is present, the
> >> > power.constraints_state field isn't necessary any more and may be
> >> > removed. However, dev_pm_qos_add_request() needs to check if the
> >> > device is being removed from the system before allocating a new
> >> > PM QoS constraints object for it, so it has to use device_pm_lock()
> >> > and the device PM QoS initialization and destruction should be done
> >> > under device_pm_lock() as well.
> >> Ok that makes sense.
> >> The constraints_state field can be replaced by a combination of
> >> dev->power.constraints and list_empty(&dev->power.entry), which makes
> >> the code more compact and less redundant.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>
> >> > ---
> >> > drivers/base/power/main.c | 4 -
> >> > drivers/base/power/qos.c | 167 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> >> > include/linux/pm.h | 8 --
> >> > include/linux/pm_qos.h | 3
> >> > 4 files changed, 101 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > Index: linux/drivers/base/power/qos.c
> >> > ===================================================================
> >> > --- linux.orig/drivers/base/power/qos.c
> >> > +++ linux/drivers/base/power/qos.c
> >> > @@ -30,15 +30,6 @@
> >> ...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > @@ -178,8 +202,8 @@ void dev_pm_qos_constraints_destroy(stru
> >> > *
> >> > * Returns 1 if the aggregated constraint value has changed,
> >> > * 0 if the aggregated constraint value has not changed,
> >> > - * -EINVAL in case of wrong parameters, -ENODEV if the device has been
> >> > - * removed from the system
> >> > + * -EINVAL in case of wrong parameters, -ENOMEM if there's not enough memory
> >> > + * to allocate for data structures.
> >> Why not use -ENODEV in case there is no device?
> >
> > I don't think it's useful for the caller. If the device is gone, the
> > constraing simply doesn't matter, so there's no error to handle.
> >
> >> > */
> >> > int dev_pm_qos_add_request(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_qos_request *req,
> >> > s32 value)
> >> > @@ -195,28 +219,35 @@ int dev_pm_qos_add_request(struct device
> >> > return -EINVAL;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > - mutex_lock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
> >> > req->dev = dev;
> >> >
> >> > - /* Return if the device has been removed */
> >> > - if (req->dev->power.constraints_state == DEV_PM_QOS_NO_DEVICE) {
> >> > - ret = -ENODEV;
> >> > - goto out;
> >> > - }
> >> > + device_pm_lock();
> >> > + mutex_lock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
> >> >
> >> > - /*
> >> > - * Allocate the constraints data on the first call to add_request,
> >> > - * i.e. only if the data is not already allocated and if the device has
> >> > - * not been removed
> >> > - */
> >> > - if (dev->power.constraints_state == DEV_PM_QOS_DEVICE_PRESENT)
> >> > - ret = dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate(dev);
> >> > + if (dev->power.constraints) {
> >> > + device_pm_unlock();
> >> > + } else {
> >> > + if (list_empty(&dev->power.entry)) {
> >> > + /* The device has been removed from the system. */
> >> > + device_pm_unlock();
> >> > + goto out;
> >> 0 is silently returned in case the device has been removed. Is that
> >> the intention?
> >
> > Pretty much it is. Is that a problem?
> I think the caller needs to know if the constraint has been applied
> correctly or not.
However, the removal of the device is a special case. What would the caller
be supposed to do when it learned that the device had been removed while it had
been trying to add a QoS constraing for it? Not much I guess.
Thanks,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
