Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:14:56 -0700 | From | Saravana Kannan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 5/5] cpufreq: postfix policy directory with the first CPU in related_cpus |
| |
On 10/15/2015 09:05 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > The sysfs policy directory is postfixed currently with the CPU number > for which the policy was created, which isn't necessarily the first CPU > in related_cpus mask. > > To make it more consistent and predictable, lets postfix the policy with > the first cpu in related-cpus mask. > > Suggested-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 19 ++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 4fa2215cc6ec..3fe13875565d 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1022,7 +1022,6 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_policy_alloc(unsigned int cpu) > { > struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu); > struct cpufreq_policy *policy; > - int ret; > > if (WARN_ON(!dev)) > return NULL; > @@ -1040,13 +1039,6 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_policy_alloc(unsigned int cpu) > if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&policy->real_cpus, GFP_KERNEL)) > goto err_free_rcpumask; > > - ret = kobject_init_and_add(&policy->kobj, &ktype_cpufreq, > - cpufreq_global_kobject, "policy%u", cpu); > - if (ret) { > - pr_err("%s: failed to init policy->kobj: %d\n", __func__, ret); > - goto err_free_real_cpus; > - } > - > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&policy->policy_list); > init_rwsem(&policy->rwsem); > spin_lock_init(&policy->transition_lock); > @@ -1057,7 +1049,6 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_policy_alloc(unsigned int cpu) > policy->cpu = cpu; > return policy; > > -err_free_real_cpus: > free_cpumask_var(policy->real_cpus);
Delete this line too? Does GCC not complain about unreachable code?
> err_free_rcpumask: > free_cpumask_var(policy->related_cpus); > @@ -1163,6 +1154,16 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) > cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus); > /* Remember CPUs present at the policy creation time. */ > cpumask_and(policy->real_cpus, policy->cpus, cpu_present_mask); > + > + /* Initialize the kobject */ > + ret = kobject_init_and_add(&policy->kobj, &ktype_cpufreq, > + cpufreq_global_kobject, "policy%u", > + cpumask_first(policy->related_cpus)); > + if (ret) { > + pr_err("%s: failed to init policy->kobj: %d\n", > + __func__, ret); > + goto out_exit_policy;
out_exit_policy label includes a call to cpufreq_policy_free(). That function needs to be changed to not call cpufreq_policy_put_kobj() in this case so that we don't try to kobject_put() an unallocated kobj.
Maybe you an call cpufreq_policy_put_kobj() in the error handling path of this function? Basically split out kojb alloc and free from policy alloc and free and alloc/free them around the same time (cpufreq_remove_Dev() will have to also call cpufreq_policy_put_kobj() when real_cpus is empty().
The refactor is just a suggestion. I'm looking at the latest code in a gitweb and making comments. So, I might have missed some corner cases in the refactor.
Also, it might be better to move the notifier from within cpufreq_policy_put_kobj() to cpufreq_policy_free()? Seems more appropriate.
Thanks, Saravana
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
| |