lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.2 190/249] cpufreq: Avoid calling cpufreq_verify_current_freq() from handle_update()
From
Date
On 7/15/2019 3:45 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>
> [ Upstream commit 70a59fde6e69d1d8579f84bf4555bfffb3ce452d ]
>
> On some occasions cpufreq_verify_current_freq() schedules a work whose
> callback is handle_update(), which further calls cpufreq_update_policy()
> which may end up calling cpufreq_verify_current_freq() again.
>
> On the other hand, when cpufreq_update_policy() is called from
> handle_update(), the pointer to the cpufreq policy is already
> available, but cpufreq_cpu_acquire() is still called to get it in
> cpufreq_update_policy(), which should be avoided as well.
>
> To fix these issues, create a new helper, refresh_frequency_limits(),
> and make both handle_update() call it cpufreq_update_policy().
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> [ rjw: Rename reeval_frequency_limits() as refresh_frequency_limits() ]
> [ rjw: Changelog ]
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index e84bf0eb7239..876a4cb09de3 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1114,13 +1114,25 @@ static int cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int cp
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static void refresh_frequency_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_policy new_policy = *policy;
> +
> + pr_debug("updating policy for CPU %u\n", policy->cpu);
> +
> + new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min;
> + new_policy.max = policy->user_policy.max;
> +
> + cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
> +}
> +
> static void handle_update(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy =
> container_of(work, struct cpufreq_policy, update);
> - unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu;
> - pr_debug("handle_update for cpu %u called\n", cpu);
> - cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
> +
> + pr_debug("handle_update for cpu %u called\n", policy->cpu);
> + refresh_frequency_limits(policy);
> }
>
> static struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_policy_alloc(unsigned int cpu)
> @@ -2392,7 +2404,6 @@ int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_acquire(cpu);
> - struct cpufreq_policy new_policy;
>
> if (!policy)
> return;
> @@ -2405,12 +2416,7 @@ void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
> (cpufreq_suspended || WARN_ON(!cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy))))
> goto unlock;
>
> - pr_debug("updating policy for CPU %u\n", cpu);
> - memcpy(&new_policy, policy, sizeof(*policy));
> - new_policy.min = policy->user_policy.min;
> - new_policy.max = policy->user_policy.max;
> -
> - cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
> + refresh_frequency_limits(policy);
>
> unlock:
> cpufreq_cpu_release(policy);

I don't think this is suitable for -stable.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-16 11:25    [W:0.822 / U:18.132 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site