Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] cpufreq: add virtual-cpufreq driver

[Viresh Kumar]

On 08-12-23, 10:18, David Dai wrote:
> Hi Viresh,
> 
> Apologies for the late reply,
> 
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 3:29 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 10-11-23, 17:49, David Dai wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/virtual-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/virtual-cpufreq.c
> > > +static unsigned int virt_cpufreq_set_perf(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > > +{
> > > +     writel_relaxed(policy->cached_target_freq,
> >
> > Drivers shouldn't be using the cached_target_freq directly. Use the target freq
> > or index passed from cpufreq core.
> 
> We were trying to avoid rounding to frequency table entries to provide
> more accurate frequency requests. However, we didn't find any
> significant power or performance regressions using the frequencies
> from the table, so I'll send another patch series using your
> suggestion.
> 
> >
> > > +static int virt_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > > +{
> > > +     topology_clear_scale_freq_source(SCALE_FREQ_SOURCE_VIRT, policy->related_cpus);
> > > +     kfree(policy->freq_table);

This becomes a dangling pointer for a very short amount of time. There may or
may not be a actual race here and so I said the ordering must be just the
opposite anyway.

> > > +     policy->freq_table = NULL;

And I thought this isn't required too since the core is going the free the
policy structure right after returning from here. But maybe it is not a
guarantee that the core provides (the code can change in future) and so be
better to unset it anyway.

> > No need of doing this. Also the order of above two calls is wrong anyway.
> 
> Can you clarify this point a bit more? Are you suggesting to just
> remove setting policy->freq_table to NULL and swap the ordering
> freeing the freq_table vs clearing the topology source? I can
> alternatively use dev_pm_opp_free_cpufreq_table to mirror the init.

That would be better actually, to let a single piece of code manage this :)

-- 
viresh