| Message ID | 1393385915-19138-1-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 26 February 2014 09:08, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote: > __cpufreq_stats_create_table always gets pass the valid and real policy > struct. So, there's no need to call cpufreq_cpu_get() to get the policy > again. > > Change-Id: I0136b3e67018ee3af2335906407f55d8c6219f71 ?? > Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> > --- > > Viresh/Rafael, > > These 3 patches is the approximate code I have in mind. > > Approximate because: > * I inserted one question as a comment into the code. > * If the patch doesn't have any bugs, the plan is to remove > cpufreq_generic_get() and references to it. > > This takes care of the "don't advertise before it's ready for use" rule. > > Viresh, > > I think the locking updates needs to be done in addition to this. > > Regards, > Saravana > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c | 12 +----------- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c > index 5793e14..e4bd27f 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c > @@ -185,7 +185,6 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > { > unsigned int i, j, count = 0, ret = 0; > struct cpufreq_stats *stat; > - struct cpufreq_policy *current_policy; > unsigned int alloc_size; > unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu; > if (per_cpu(cpufreq_stats_table, cpu)) > @@ -194,13 +193,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > if ((stat) == NULL) > return -ENOMEM; > > - current_policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); > - if (current_policy == NULL) { > - ret = -EINVAL; > - goto error_get_fail; > - } > - > - ret = sysfs_create_group(¤t_policy->kobj, &stats_attr_group); > + ret = sysfs_create_group(&policy->kobj, &stats_attr_group); > if (ret) > goto error_out; > > @@ -243,11 +236,8 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > stat->last_time = get_jiffies_64(); > stat->last_index = freq_table_get_index(stat, policy->cur); > spin_unlock(&cpufreq_stats_lock); > - cpufreq_cpu_put(current_policy); > return 0; > error_out: > - cpufreq_cpu_put(current_policy); > -error_get_fail: > kfree(stat); > per_cpu(cpufreq_stats_table, cpu) = NULL; > return ret; I was damn sure that this wasn't a waste of time. This was some meaningful code when I visited it earlier. And we absolutely required a new cpufreq_cpu_get().. Reason: Earlier tables were created for this notifier: CPUFREQ_NOTIFY and it used to come with another changed copy of 'policy' and so we were required to get the real copy of policy to get to the right kobj. But recently I have simplified stuff there and these tables are now added with CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and so this replication isn't required anymore. So, Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> While you are at it please get this part into __cpufreq_stats_create_table() routine: table = cpufreq_frequency_get_table(cpu); if (!table) return 0; As it is replicated at two places currently. -- 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 02/25/2014 09:06 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 26 February 2014 09:08, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> __cpufreq_stats_create_table always gets pass the valid and real policy >> struct. So, there's no need to call cpufreq_cpu_get() to get the policy >> again. >> >> Change-Id: I0136b3e67018ee3af2335906407f55d8c6219f71 > > ?? > >> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> >> --- >> >> Viresh/Rafael, >> >> These 3 patches is the approximate code I have in mind. >> >> Approximate because: >> * I inserted one question as a comment into the code. >> * If the patch doesn't have any bugs, the plan is to remove >> cpufreq_generic_get() and references to it. >> >> This takes care of the "don't advertise before it's ready for use" rule. >> >> Viresh, >> >> I think the locking updates needs to be done in addition to this. >> >> Regards, >> Saravana >> >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c | 12 +----------- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c >> index 5793e14..e4bd27f 100644 >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c >> @@ -185,7 +185,6 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, >> { >> unsigned int i, j, count = 0, ret = 0; >> struct cpufreq_stats *stat; >> - struct cpufreq_policy *current_policy; >> unsigned int alloc_size; >> unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu; >> if (per_cpu(cpufreq_stats_table, cpu)) >> @@ -194,13 +193,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, >> if ((stat) == NULL) >> return -ENOMEM; >> >> - current_policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); >> - if (current_policy == NULL) { >> - ret = -EINVAL; >> - goto error_get_fail; >> - } >> - >> - ret = sysfs_create_group(¤t_policy->kobj, &stats_attr_group); >> + ret = sysfs_create_group(&policy->kobj, &stats_attr_group); >> if (ret) >> goto error_out; >> >> @@ -243,11 +236,8 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, >> stat->last_time = get_jiffies_64(); >> stat->last_index = freq_table_get_index(stat, policy->cur); >> spin_unlock(&cpufreq_stats_lock); >> - cpufreq_cpu_put(current_policy); >> return 0; >> error_out: >> - cpufreq_cpu_put(current_policy); >> -error_get_fail: >> kfree(stat); >> per_cpu(cpufreq_stats_table, cpu) = NULL; >> return ret; > > I was damn sure that this wasn't a waste of time. This was some meaningful > code when I visited it earlier. And we absolutely required a new > cpufreq_cpu_get().. > > Reason: Earlier tables were created for this notifier: CPUFREQ_NOTIFY and > it used to come with another changed copy of 'policy' and so we were required > to get the real copy of policy to get to the right kobj. > > But recently I have simplified stuff there and these tables are now added with > CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and so this replication isn't required anymore. Agreed. I already knew it had a good reason. :) Just that it's not needed anymore. > So, Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Thanks. > > While you are at it please get this part into __cpufreq_stats_create_table() > routine: > > table = cpufreq_frequency_get_table(cpu); > if (!table) > return 0; > > As it is replicated at two places currently. > Doing it as a separate patch since it's technically unrelated to these changes. -Saravana
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c index 5793e14..e4bd27f 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c @@ -185,7 +185,6 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, { unsigned int i, j, count = 0, ret = 0; struct cpufreq_stats *stat; - struct cpufreq_policy *current_policy; unsigned int alloc_size; unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu; if (per_cpu(cpufreq_stats_table, cpu)) @@ -194,13 +193,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, if ((stat) == NULL) return -ENOMEM; - current_policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); - if (current_policy == NULL) { - ret = -EINVAL; - goto error_get_fail; - } - - ret = sysfs_create_group(¤t_policy->kobj, &stats_attr_group); + ret = sysfs_create_group(&policy->kobj, &stats_attr_group); if (ret) goto error_out; @@ -243,11 +236,8 @@ static int __cpufreq_stats_create_table(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, stat->last_time = get_jiffies_64(); stat->last_index = freq_table_get_index(stat, policy->cur); spin_unlock(&cpufreq_stats_lock); - cpufreq_cpu_put(current_policy); return 0; error_out: - cpufreq_cpu_put(current_policy); -error_get_fail: kfree(stat); per_cpu(cpufreq_stats_table, cpu) = NULL; return ret;
__cpufreq_stats_create_table always gets pass the valid and real policy struct. So, there's no need to call cpufreq_cpu_get() to get the policy again. Change-Id: I0136b3e67018ee3af2335906407f55d8c6219f71 Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> --- Viresh/Rafael, These 3 patches is the approximate code I have in mind. Approximate because: * I inserted one question as a comment into the code. * If the patch doesn't have any bugs, the plan is to remove cpufreq_generic_get() and references to it. This takes care of the "don't advertise before it's ready for use" rule. Viresh, I think the locking updates needs to be done in addition to this. Regards, Saravana drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c | 12 +----------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-)