lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH V4 5/5] cpuidle: cpuidle driver for apm
Hi Stephen,

Thanks for reviewing.

On 03/23/2011 06:44 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:03:40 +0530 Trinabh Gupta<trinabh@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> +static int apm_setup_cpuidle(int cpu)
>> +{
>> + struct cpuidle_device *dev = kzalloc(sizeof(struct cpuidle_device),
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>
> Same as xen comments: no NULL check.
>
>> + int count = CPUIDLE_DRIVER_STATE_START;
>> + dev->cpu = cpu;
>> + dev->drv =&apm_idle_driver;
>
> Also wondering why you would ever have a different idle routine on
> different cpus?

Yes, this is an ongoing debate. Apparently it is a possibility
because of ACPI bugs. CPU's can have asymmetric C-states
and overall different idle routines on different cpus. Please
refer to http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/24/132 and
https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/10/37 for a discussion around this.

I have posted a patch series that does global registration
i.e same idle routines for each cpu. Please check
http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/3/22/161 . That series applies on
top of this series. Global registration significantly
simplifies the design, but still we are not sure about the
direction to take.

>
>> +
>> + dev->states[count] = state_apm_idle;
>> + count++;
>> +
>> + dev->state_count = count;
>> +
>> + if (cpuidle_register_device(dev))
>> + return -EIO;
>
> And we leak dev.
>
>> +static void apm_idle_exit(void)
>> +{
>> + cpuidle_unregister_driver(&apm_idle_driver);
>
> Do we leak the per cpu device structure here?

I will see how we can save
per cpu device structure pointers so that we can free them.

>
>> + return;
>
> Unnecessary return statement.
>

Thanks,
-Trinabh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-23 11:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans