Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: vexpress-spc: Fix wrong alternation of policy->related_cpus during CPU hp
From: Dietmar Eggemann
Date: Thu Nov 28 2019 - 05:01:49 EST
On 28/11/2019 03:31, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 27-11-19, 15:40, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> diff --git i/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c w/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c
>> index 354e0e7025ae..e0e2e789a0b7 100644
>> --- i/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c
>> +++ w/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c
>> @@ -551,8 +551,9 @@ static struct clk *ve_spc_clk_register(struct device *cpu_dev)
>>
>> static int __init ve_spc_clk_init(void)
>> {
>> - int cpu;
>> + int cpu, cluster;
>> struct clk *clk;
>> + bool init_opp_table[MAX_CLUSTERS] = { false };
>>
>> if (!info)
>> return 0; /* Continue only if SPC is initialised */
>> @@ -578,8 +579,17 @@ static int __init ve_spc_clk_init(void)
>> continue;
>> }
>>
>> + cluster = topology_physical_package_id(cpu_dev->id);
>> + if (init_opp_table[cluster])
>> + continue;
>> +
>> if (ve_init_opp_table(cpu_dev))
>> pr_warn("failed to initialise cpu%d opp table\n", cpu);
>> + else if (dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus(cpu_dev,
>> + topology_core_cpumask(cpu_dev->id)))
>> + pr_warn("failed to mark OPPs shared for cpu%d\n", cpu);
>> +
>> + init_opp_table[cluster] = true;
>> }
>>
>> platform_device_register_simple("vexpress-spc-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0);
>> diff --git i/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c w/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c
>> index 506e3f2bf53a..83c85d3d67e3 100644
>> --- i/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c
>> +++ w/drivers/cpufreq/vexpress-spc-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -434,7 +434,7 @@ static int ve_spc_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> if (cur_cluster < MAX_CLUSTERS) {
>> int cpu;
>>
>> - cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, topology_core_cpumask(policy->cpu));
>> + dev_pm_opp_get_sharing_cpus(cpu_dev, policy->cpus);
>>
>> for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus)
>> per_cpu(physical_cluster, cpu) = cur_cluster;
>
> This is a better *work-around* I would say, as we can't break it the
> way I explained earlier :)
I do agree. Tested CPU hp stress on TC2 and it looks good.
Tested-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx>