lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/2] intel_pstate: Set core to min P state during core offline
On 03/18/2014 10:20 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 19 March 2014 01:14, Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There was no problem per se. In stop() all I really needed to do is stop
>> the
>> timer and set the P state to MIN.
>>
>> At init time I need to allocate memory and start timer. If stopping the
>> timer
>> and deallocating memory are separated then I need code in init() to detect
>> this case.
>
> Sorry, I didn't understood what exactly is special here :(
>
> If we return failure from CPU_POST_DEAD for some reason without
> calling exit() then you will have memory leak in your init() as we are
> allocating memory without checking if we already have that (nothing wrong
> in it though as other parts of kernel should handle things properly here).

No. If you got the CPU_POST_DEAD callback CPU_DOWN_PREPARE has already
succeeded. init() is called on the CPU_ONLINE and CPU_DOWN_FAILED path.

The issue is there is a two part teardown that can fail and the teardown
fail will be followed by a call to init().

If the timer is not running (stopped in stop()) then there is no reason to
have the memory around. If CPU_DOWN_PREPARE happens followed by CPU_DOWN_FAILED
then intel_pstate is ready for init() to be called with no special case
code. This maintains the semantics the core expects.


>
> Probably the situation would be exactly same if we divide the exit path into
> stop and exit routines, which I still feel is the right way forward. Because
> ideally cpufreq shouldn't call init() if it hasn't called exit() (If
> it is doing that
> right now then its wrong and can be fixed). And so you must do the cleanup
> in exit()..
>

The core *is* doing this on the CPU_DOWN_FAILED path ATM.

On the CPU_DOWN_FAILED path the core should be undoing the work it did in the
CPU_DOWN_PREPARE path this would require another callback to drivers to let
them "restart" after a call to stop() as well.

I don't think it is worth that level of effort IMHO.

--Dirk


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-03-19 17:01    [W:0.065 / U:3.220 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site