* [PATCH][RFC] cpufreq: Avoid warning during resume by return EAGAIN if cpufreq is unavailable
@ 2016-06-25 16:28 Chen Yu
2016-06-27 1:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Chen Yu @ 2016-06-25 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-pm
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Viresh Kumar, linux-kernel, linux-acpi, Chen Yu
Previously we saw warning during resume on some platforms,
which use acpi-cpufreq:
smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 3 APIC 0x5
cache: parent cpu3 should not be sleeping
CPU3 is up
ACPI: Waking up from system sleep state S3
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 12546 at drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:2173
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff81311d95>] dump_stack+0x5c/0x77
[<ffffffff8107aef4>] __warn+0xc4/0xe0
[<ffffffff8148c13e>] cpufreq_update_policy+0xfe/0x150
[<ffffffff8148c190>] cpufreq_update_policy+0x150/0x150
[<ffffffffc03e42ef>] acpi_processor_notify+0x51/0xdc [processor]
[<ffffffff813b0d24>] acpi_ev_notify_dispatch+0x3c/0x55
[<ffffffff81399613>] acpi_os_execute_deferred+0x10/0x1a
[<ffffffff81093ffb>] process_one_work+0x14b/0x400
[<ffffffff81094aa5>] worker_thread+0x65/0x4a0
[<ffffffff81094a40>] rescuer_thread+0x340/0x340
[<ffffffff81099dbf>] kthread+0xdf/0x100
[<ffffffff815c7ee2>] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x40
[<ffffffff81099ce0>] kthread_park+0x50/0x50
This is because this platforms tries to notify
the processor to reevaluate the _PPC object in _WAK,
however at that time the cpufreq driver's resume has
not been invoked yet, thus cpufreq_update_current_freq
returns zero because of cpufreq_suspended = true, which
caused the warning.
Actually it should be unnecessary to care the update request
at that moment, so remove the warning and change the return
value to -EAGAIN for invokers.
Reported-and-tested-by: BzukTuk <darlor@seznam.cz>
Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 +++++--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 9009295..67a3aa1 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -2262,8 +2262,11 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
*/
if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
new_policy.cur = cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy);
- if (WARN_ON(!new_policy.cur)) {
- ret = -EIO;
+ if (!new_policy.cur) {
+ if (WARN_ON(!cpufreq_suspended))
+ ret = -EIO;
+ else
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
goto unlock;
}
}
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][RFC] cpufreq: Avoid warning during resume by return EAGAIN if cpufreq is unavailable
2016-06-25 16:28 [PATCH][RFC] cpufreq: Avoid warning during resume by return EAGAIN if cpufreq is unavailable Chen Yu
@ 2016-06-27 1:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-06-27 7:20 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2016-06-27 1:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chen Yu; +Cc: linux-pm, Viresh Kumar, linux-kernel, linux-acpi
On Sunday, June 26, 2016 12:28:48 AM Chen Yu wrote:
> Previously we saw warning during resume on some platforms,
> which use acpi-cpufreq:
>
> smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 3 APIC 0x5
> cache: parent cpu3 should not be sleeping
> CPU3 is up
> ACPI: Waking up from system sleep state S3
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 12546 at drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:2173
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff81311d95>] dump_stack+0x5c/0x77
> [<ffffffff8107aef4>] __warn+0xc4/0xe0
> [<ffffffff8148c13e>] cpufreq_update_policy+0xfe/0x150
> [<ffffffff8148c190>] cpufreq_update_policy+0x150/0x150
> [<ffffffffc03e42ef>] acpi_processor_notify+0x51/0xdc [processor]
> [<ffffffff813b0d24>] acpi_ev_notify_dispatch+0x3c/0x55
> [<ffffffff81399613>] acpi_os_execute_deferred+0x10/0x1a
> [<ffffffff81093ffb>] process_one_work+0x14b/0x400
> [<ffffffff81094aa5>] worker_thread+0x65/0x4a0
> [<ffffffff81094a40>] rescuer_thread+0x340/0x340
> [<ffffffff81099dbf>] kthread+0xdf/0x100
> [<ffffffff815c7ee2>] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x40
> [<ffffffff81099ce0>] kthread_park+0x50/0x50
>
> This is because this platforms tries to notify
> the processor to reevaluate the _PPC object in _WAK,
> however at that time the cpufreq driver's resume has
> not been invoked yet, thus cpufreq_update_current_freq
> returns zero because of cpufreq_suspended = true, which
> caused the warning.
>
> Actually it should be unnecessary to care the update request
> at that moment, so remove the warning and change the return
> value to -EAGAIN for invokers.
>
> Reported-and-tested-by: BzukTuk <darlor@seznam.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 9009295..67a3aa1 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -2262,8 +2262,11 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
> */
> if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
> new_policy.cur = cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy);
> - if (WARN_ON(!new_policy.cur)) {
> - ret = -EIO;
> + if (!new_policy.cur) {
> + if (WARN_ON(!cpufreq_suspended))
If we know that cpufreq is suspended, there's no reason to call
cpufreq_update_current_freq() at all here.
> + ret = -EIO;
> + else
> + ret = -EAGAIN;
> goto unlock;
> }
> }
Moreover, cpufreq_update_current_freq() has only two callers and the other
one already checks cpufreq_suspended before invoking it, so what about the
patch below instead?
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1544,9 +1544,6 @@ static unsigned int cpufreq_update_curre
{
unsigned int new_freq;
- if (cpufreq_suspended)
- return 0;
-
new_freq = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
if (!new_freq)
return 0;
@@ -2280,6 +2277,10 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int c
* -> ask driver for current freq and notify governors about a change
*/
if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
+ if (cpufreq_suspended) {
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
+ goto unlock;
+ }
new_policy.cur = cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy);
if (WARN_ON(!new_policy.cur)) {
ret = -EIO;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][RFC] cpufreq: Avoid warning during resume by return EAGAIN if cpufreq is unavailable
2016-06-27 1:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2016-06-27 7:20 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-06-28 1:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2016-06-27 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki; +Cc: Chen Yu, linux-pm, linux-kernel, linux-acpi
On 27-06-16, 03:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1544,9 +1544,6 @@ static unsigned int cpufreq_update_curre
> {
> unsigned int new_freq;
>
> - if (cpufreq_suspended)
> - return 0;
> -
> new_freq = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
> if (!new_freq)
> return 0;
> @@ -2280,6 +2277,10 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int c
> * -> ask driver for current freq and notify governors about a change
> */
> if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
> + if (cpufreq_suspended) {
> + ret = -EAGAIN;
> + goto unlock;
> + }
> new_policy.cur = cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy);
> if (WARN_ON(!new_policy.cur)) {
> ret = -EIO;
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][RFC] cpufreq: Avoid warning during resume by return EAGAIN if cpufreq is unavailable
2016-06-27 7:20 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2016-06-28 1:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2016-06-28 1:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Viresh Kumar; +Cc: Chen Yu, linux-pm, linux-kernel, linux-acpi
On Monday, June 27, 2016 12:50:27 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 27-06-16, 03:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 ++++---
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -1544,9 +1544,6 @@ static unsigned int cpufreq_update_curre
> > {
> > unsigned int new_freq;
> >
> > - if (cpufreq_suspended)
> > - return 0;
> > -
> > new_freq = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
> > if (!new_freq)
> > return 0;
> > @@ -2280,6 +2277,10 @@ int cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int c
> > * -> ask driver for current freq and notify governors about a change
> > */
> > if (cpufreq_driver->get && !cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
> > + if (cpufreq_suspended) {
> > + ret = -EAGAIN;
> > + goto unlock;
> > + }
> > new_policy.cur = cpufreq_update_current_freq(policy);
> > if (WARN_ON(!new_policy.cur)) {
> > ret = -EIO;
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Thanks, but this needs to go in in two pieces, because cpufreq_start_governor()
in the mainline doesn't check cpufreq_suspended (the linux-next version of it
does that).
So the second part of the patch is needed in the mainline/stable to get rid
of false-positive WARN_ON()s and the first one can go in on top of the
previous linux-next changes.
Thanks,
Rafael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-06-28 1:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-06-25 16:28 [PATCH][RFC] cpufreq: Avoid warning during resume by return EAGAIN if cpufreq is unavailable Chen Yu
2016-06-27 1:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-06-27 7:20 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-06-28 1:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).