From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH V2 5/5] cpufreq: Avoid calling cpufreq_verify_current_freq() from handle_update()
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 08:35:50 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ea598384a9ba18e20b598863ce339a55093be5f6.1560999838.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1560999838.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
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 we still call cpufreq_cpu_acquire() to get it in
cpufreq_update_policy(), which should be avoided as well.
Fix both the issues by creating another helper
reeval_frequency_limits().
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.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 4556a53fc764..0a73de7aae54 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1115,13 +1115,25 @@ static int cpufreq_add_policy_cpu(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int cp
return ret;
}
+static void reeval_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);
+ reeval_frequency_limits(policy);
}
static struct cpufreq_policy *cpufreq_policy_alloc(unsigned int cpu)
@@ -2378,7 +2390,6 @@ 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;
@@ -2391,12 +2402,7 @@ void cpufreq_update_policy(unsigned int cpu)
(cpufreq_suspended || WARN_ON(!cpufreq_verify_current_freq(policy, false))))
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);
+ reeval_frequency_limits(policy);
unlock:
cpufreq_cpu_release(policy);
--
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-20 3:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-20 3:05 [PATCH V2 0/5] cpufreq: cleanups Viresh Kumar
2019-06-20 3:05 ` [PATCH V2 1/5] cpufreq: Remove the redundant !setpolicy check Viresh Kumar
2019-06-27 21:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-06-20 3:05 ` [PATCH V2 2/5] cpufreq: Replace few CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS checks with has_target() Viresh Kumar
2019-06-27 5:00 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-06-27 9:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-06-28 5:16 ` [PATCH V3 2/5] cpufreq: Don't skip frequency validation for has_target() drivers Viresh Kumar
2019-06-20 3:05 ` [PATCH V2 3/5] cpufreq: Use has_target() instead of !setpolicy Viresh Kumar
2019-06-27 21:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-06-20 3:05 ` [PATCH V2 4/5] cpufreq: Reuse cpufreq_update_current_freq() in __cpufreq_get() Viresh Kumar
2019-06-20 3:05 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ea598384a9ba18e20b598863ce339a55093be5f6.1560999838.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).