Re: [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq, add BUG() messages in critical paths to aid debugging failures

[Prarit Bhargava]

On 11/10/2014 11:23 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 5 November 2014 20:23, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
>> index b1ee597..f158882 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
>> @@ -161,9 +161,18 @@ void dbs_check_cpu(struct dbs_data *dbs_data, int cpu)
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dbs_check_cpu);
>>
>>  static inline void __gov_queue_work(int cpu, struct dbs_data *dbs_data,
>> -               unsigned int delay)
>> +                                   unsigned int delay,
>> +                                   struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>  {
>> -       struct cpu_dbs_common_info *cdbs = dbs_data->cdata->get_cpu_cdbs(cpu);
> 
> I will let it crash right here instead of additional code :)

the problem is tht the userful information is the values of initialized,
enabled, and what the  event was :(

in every case i ended up needing the values.

> 
>> @@ -258,7 +268,13 @@ int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> -       WARN_ON(!dbs_data && (event != CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT));
>> +       if (!dbs_data && (event != CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT)) {
>> +               pr_emerg("governor_data is NULL but governor %s is initialized = %d [governor_enabled = %d event = %u]\n",
>> +                        policy->governor->name,
>> +                        atomic_read(&policy->governor->initialized),
>> +                        policy->governor_enabled, event);
>> +               BUG();
> 
> How is the BUG better than the WARN here ?
> 

we null pointer panic later on, and again the useful values are the ones displayed.

>>         switch (event) {
>>         case CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT:
>> @@ -329,6 +345,12 @@ int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>>         case CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT:
>>                 mutex_lock(&dbs_data->usage_count_mutex);
>>                 if (atomic_dec_and_test(&dbs_data->usage_count)) {
>> +                       if (atomic_read(&policy->governor->initialized) > 1) {
> 
> Isn't this wrong? Consider 4 CPUs with separate clock line and have set
> governor-per-policy to true. EXIT will be called for every CPU hotplug and
> initialized will be 4 initially..
> 
> Or I am still vacation lag'd ? :)

oh, is that right?  i'll look into that.

P.
> 
>> +                               pr_emerg("Removing governor %s but initialized = %d, dbs_data->usage_count = 0\n",
>> +                                        policy->governor->name,
>> +                                  atomic_read(&policy->governor->initialized));
>> +                               BUG();
>> +                       }
>>                         sysfs_remove_group(get_governor_parent_kobj(policy),
>>                                         get_sysfs_attr(dbs_data));
>>
>> --
>> 1.7.9.3
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/