Re: [PATCH] acpi-cpufreq: replace per_cpu with driver_data of policy
From: Pan Xinhui
Date: Tue Jul 07 2015 - 08:04:53 EST
hi, Viresh
thanks for your reply. :)
On 2015å07æ07æ 18:45, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 07-07-15, 18:29, Pan Xinhui wrote:
>>
>> Now policy has field of driver_data, we can use it to get rid of per_cpu
>> acpi_cpufreq_data.
>
> Instead:
> "Drivers can store their internal per-policy information in
> policy->driver_data, lets use it."
>
thanks.
>> we have benefits after this replacing. 1) memory saving. 2) policy is
>
> s/we/We
>
> Also these points can be kept in separate lines :)
>
agree, thanks for pointing out it.
>> shared by several cpus, per_cpu seems not correct. useing *driver_data*
>
> using
>
>> is more reasonable. 3) fix a memory leak in acpi_cpufreq_cpu_exit.
>
> Not just that. You are also fixing NULL pointer dereferences if wrong
> or uninitialized per-cpu data is used, because of a recent hotplug of
> policy->cpu.
>
acpi_cpufreq_cpu_exit has if (data) check.
In past days, I believed in that all per_cpu is initialized to NULL by default, like global variables.
>> as
>> policy->cpu might change after cpu hotplug. So sometimes we cant't free
>> *data*, use *driver_data* to fix it. 4) fix a zero return value of
>> get_cur_freq_on_cpu. Only per_cpu(policy->cpu) is set to *data*, if we
>> try to get cpufreq on other cpus, we get zero instead of correct values.
>> Use *driver_data* to fix it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
>> index 0136dfc..7f662dd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -72,8 +72,6 @@ struct acpi_cpufreq_data {
>> cpumask_var_t freqdomain_cpus;
>> };
>>
>> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct acpi_cpufreq_data *, acfreq_data);
>> -
>> /* acpi_perf_data is a pointer to percpu data. */
>> static struct acpi_processor_performance __percpu *acpi_perf_data;
>>
>> @@ -144,7 +142,7 @@ static int _store_boost(int val)
>>
>> static ssize_t show_freqdomain_cpus(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
>> {
>> - struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data = per_cpu(acfreq_data, policy->cpu);
>> + struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data = policy->driver_data;
>>
>> return cpufreq_show_cpus(data->freqdomain_cpus, buf);
>> }
>> @@ -327,7 +325,8 @@ static void drv_write(struct drv_cmd *cmd)
>> put_cpu();
>> }
>>
>> -static u32 get_cur_val(const struct cpumask *mask)
>> +static u32 get_cur_val(const struct cpumask *mask,
>> + struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data)
>
> Run checkpatch --strict to see some alignment warnings here..
>
yes, confused..
Let me have a check.
>> {
>> struct acpi_processor_performance *perf;
>> struct drv_cmd cmd;
>> @@ -335,7 +334,7 @@ static u32 get_cur_val(const struct cpumask *mask)
>> if (unlikely(cpumask_empty(mask)))
>> return 0;
>>
>> - switch (per_cpu(acfreq_data, cpumask_first(mask))->cpu_feature) {
>> + switch (data->cpu_feature) {
>> case SYSTEM_INTEL_MSR_CAPABLE:
>> cmd.type = SYSTEM_INTEL_MSR_CAPABLE;
>> cmd.addr.msr.reg = MSR_IA32_PERF_CTL;
>> @@ -346,7 +345,7 @@ static u32 get_cur_val(const struct cpumask *mask)
>> break;
>> case SYSTEM_IO_CAPABLE:
>> cmd.type = SYSTEM_IO_CAPABLE;
>> - perf = per_cpu(acfreq_data, cpumask_first(mask))->acpi_data;
>> + perf = data->acpi_data;
>> cmd.addr.io.port = perf->control_register.address;
>> cmd.addr.io.bit_width = perf->control_register.bit_width;
>> break;
>> @@ -364,19 +363,26 @@ static u32 get_cur_val(const struct cpumask *mask)
>>
>> static unsigned int get_cur_freq_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>> {
>> - struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data = per_cpu(acfreq_data, cpu);
>> + struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data;
>> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>> unsigned int freq;
>> unsigned int cached_freq;
>>
>> pr_debug("get_cur_freq_on_cpu (%d)\n", cpu);
>>
>> + policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
>> + if (unlikely(!policy))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + data = policy->driver_data;
>
> Do
>
> + cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>
> right here. No need of doing this towards the end.
>
agree
thanks
>> if (unlikely(data == NULL ||
>> data->acpi_data == NULL || data->freq_table == NULL)) {
>
> Maybe this if you like:
>
> if (unlikely(! data || !data->acpi_data || !data->freq_table))
> return 0;
>
Looks better
thanks
>> + cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> cached_freq = data->freq_table[data->acpi_data->state].frequency;
>
> And this freq_table thing gives you opportunity to write another
> patch :)
>
> policy already have: policy->freq_table :)
>
Yes, upstream codes changes much.
These changes really help us. thanks for your hard work. :)
>> - freq = extract_freq(get_cur_val(cpumask_of(cpu)), data);
>> + freq = extract_freq(get_cur_val(cpumask_of(cpu), data), data);
>> if (freq != cached_freq) {
>> /*
>> * The dreaded BIOS frequency change behind our back.
>> @@ -385,6 +391,8 @@ static unsigned int get_cur_freq_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>> data->resume = 1;
>> }
>>
>> + cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>> +
>> pr_debug("cur freq = %u\n", freq);
>>
>> return freq;
>> @@ -397,7 +405,7 @@ static unsigned int check_freqs(const struct cpumask *mask, unsigned int freq,
>> unsigned int i;
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
>> - cur_freq = extract_freq(get_cur_val(mask), data);
>> + cur_freq = extract_freq(get_cur_val(mask, data), data);
>> if (cur_freq == freq)
>> return 1;
>> udelay(10);
>> @@ -408,7 +416,7 @@ static unsigned int check_freqs(const struct cpumask *mask, unsigned int freq,
>> static int acpi_cpufreq_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> unsigned int index)
>> {
>> - struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data = per_cpu(acfreq_data, policy->cpu);
>> + struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data = policy->driver_data;
>> struct acpi_processor_performance *perf;
>> struct drv_cmd cmd;
>> unsigned int next_perf_state = 0; /* Index into perf table */
>> @@ -673,7 +681,7 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> }
>>
>> data->acpi_data = per_cpu_ptr(acpi_perf_data, cpu);
>> - per_cpu(acfreq_data, cpu) = data;
>> + policy->driver_data = data;
>>
>> if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC))
>> acpi_cpufreq_driver.flags |= CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS;
>> @@ -843,19 +851,19 @@ err_free_mask:
>> free_cpumask_var(data->freqdomain_cpus);
>> err_free:
>> kfree(data);
>> - per_cpu(acfreq_data, cpu) = NULL;
>> + policy->driver_data = NULL;
>>
>> return result;
>> }
>>
>> static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> {
>> - struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data = per_cpu(acfreq_data, policy->cpu);
>> + struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data = policy->driver_data;
>>
>> pr_debug("acpi_cpufreq_cpu_exit\n");
>>
>> if (data) {
>> - per_cpu(acfreq_data, policy->cpu) = NULL;
>> + policy->driver_data = NULL;
>> acpi_processor_unregister_performance(data->acpi_data,
>> policy->cpu);
>> free_cpumask_var(data->freqdomain_cpus);
>> @@ -868,7 +876,7 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>
>> static int acpi_cpufreq_resume(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> {
>> - struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data = per_cpu(acfreq_data, policy->cpu);
>> + struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data = policy->driver_data;
>>
>> pr_debug("acpi_cpufreq_resume\n");
>
> Rest looks fine.
>
thanks
xinhui
--
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/