Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Do not schedule policy update work in cpufreq_resume()
From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Wed Mar 16 2016 - 00:48:12 EST
On 15-03-16, 13:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 12-03-16, 03:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> cpufreq_resume() attempts to resync the current frequency with
> >> policy->cur for the first online CPU, but first it does that after
> >> restarting governors for all active policies (which means that this
> >> is racy with respect to whatever the governors do) and second it
> > Why? Its doing the update withing policy->rwsem ..
> Which doesn't matter.
> dbs_work_handler() doesn't acquire policy->rwsem and may be executed
> in parallel with this, for example.
Right, so we need to fixup something here.
> >> already is too late for that when cpufreq_resume() is called (that
> >> happens after invoking ->resume callbacks for all devices in the
> >> system).
> >> Also it doesn't make sense to do that for one CPU only in any case,
> >> because the other CPUs in the system need not share the policy with
> >> it and their policy->cur may be out of sync as well in principle.
> > Its done just for the boot CPU, because that's the only CPU that goes to
> > suspend. All other CPUs are disabled/enabled and so the policies are
> > reinitialized for policy->cur as well.
> > I think, its still important to get things in sync, as some bootloader may
> > change the frequency to something else during resume.
> > And our code may not be safe for the case, the current frequency of the CPU
> > isn't part of the freq-table of the policy.
> Since we're already started the governor at this point (or called the
> driver's ->resume), so the CPU is (or shortly will be) running at a
> frequency that makes sense at this point.
> It might be running at a wrong one before, but not when this code is executed.
Consider Performance governor for example. Lets say policy->max is 1 GHz, so
before suspend policy->cur will be 1 GHz. We suspended and resumed, and the
bootloader changed the frequency to 500 MHz (but policy->cur remains the same at
1 GHz). Even after calling START for the governor, it will continue to run at
So, your patch break things for sure.
> I kind of understand the motivation for this code, but it's too late
> to fix up the frequency of the boot CPU at this point. If you are
> really worried about it, the time to do that is in syscore ops.
Hmm, so maybe fix policy->cur at the top of this routine? syscore-ops wouldn't
get called for boot-cpu and so it wouldn't matter.