| Message ID | 1453715167-26165-1-git-send-email-ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last > primitive instead. > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > { > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock); > do { > - policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list); > - > /* No more policies in the list */ > - if (&policy->policy_list == &cpufreq_policy_list) > + if (list_is_last(&policy->policy_list, &cpufreq_policy_list)) > return NULL; > + > + policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list); > } while (!suitable_policy(policy, active)); > > return policy; Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Hi, On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last > > primitive instead. > > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > { > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock); Which branch is this patch based on? Thanks, - Juri > > do { > > - policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list); > > - > > /* No more policies in the list */ > > - if (&policy->policy_list == &cpufreq_policy_list) > > + if (list_is_last(&policy->policy_list, &cpufreq_policy_list)) > > return NULL; > > + > > + policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list); > > } while (!suitable_policy(policy, active)); > > > > return policy; > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > -- > viresh > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 25-01-16, 11:18, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi, > > On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last > > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last > > > primitive instead. > > > > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > > { > > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock); > > Which branch is this patch based on? Dude, what's going on here? How come you rebased on Juri's patches ? :)
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:52:15PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 25-01-16, 11:18, Juri Lelli wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > > > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last > > > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last > > > > primitive instead. > > > > > > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > > > { > > > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock); > > > > Which branch is this patch based on? > > Dude, what's going on here? How come you rebased on Juri's patches ? > :) Ah right! I found this issue while reviewing Juri's patches from the cpufreq-cleanups branch and didn't switch back to pm-next before making this change. Shall resend the patch. > > -- > viresh > -- Thanks and Regards gautham. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:18:24AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi, > > On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last > > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last > > > primitive instead. > > > > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > > { > > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock); > > Which branch is this patch based on? My bad! This is based on your branch git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git upstream/cpufreq_cleanups. I found this issue while reviewing your cleanup patches. > > Thanks, > > - Juri -- Thanks and Regards gautham. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 27/01/16 11:39, Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:18:24AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > > > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last > > > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last > > > > primitive instead. > > > > > > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > > > { > > > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock); > > > > Which branch is this patch based on? > > My bad! This is based on your branch git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git > upstream/cpufreq_cleanups. I found this issue while reviewing your > cleanup patches. > No problem, and thanks for reviewing those! Any feedback? :) Best, - Juri -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:10:20AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > On 27/01/16 11:39, Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:18:24AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 25/01/16 15:20, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > On 25-01-16, 15:16, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > > > > > Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last > > > > > policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last > > > > > primitive instead. > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > > index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > > @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > > > > { > > > > > lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock); > > > > > > Which branch is this patch based on? > > > > My bad! This is based on your branch git://linux-arm.org/linux-jl.git > > upstream/cpufreq_cleanups. I found this issue while reviewing your > > cleanup patches. > > > > No problem, and thanks for reviewing those! Any feedback? :) It's a timely patchset! Off late on POWER systems we've been observing a lot of jitters due to the on-demand worker thread periodically interrupting a running task to monitor (not necessarily change if the task!) frequency. We would very much like to see the frequency monitoring/change happen from an the timer-context instead of waking up a separate worker thread, something similar to CPUFREQ_DRIVER_FAST in sched_governor. However, that approach required a careful audit of all the locks that are currently taken in cpufreq core and this patch set is a good attempt in this direction. Barring the issues raised by Viresh with respect to the locking conventions around CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT, I didn't have any particular issues with it. > > Best, > > - Juri > -- Thanks and Regards gautham. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 78b1e2f..b3059a3 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -67,11 +67,11 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy *next_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, { lockdep_assert_held(&cpufreq_driver_lock); do { - policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list); - /* No more policies in the list */ - if (&policy->policy_list == &cpufreq_policy_list) + if (list_is_last(&policy->policy_list, &cpufreq_policy_list)) return NULL; + + policy = list_next_entry(policy, policy_list); } while (!suitable_policy(policy, active)); return policy;
Currently next_policy() explicitly checks if a policy is the last policy in the cpufreq_policy_list. Use the standard list_is_last primitive instead. Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)