On 07/24/2013 04:51 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 24 July 2013 13:13, Chanwoo Choi cw00.choi@samsung.com wrote:
On 07/24/2013 02:05 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 24 July 2013 06:55, Chanwoo Choi cw00.choi@samsung.com wrote:
On 07/22/2013 07:11 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 18 July 2013 16:47, Chanwoo Choi cw00.choi@samsung.com wrote:
+static void cpufreq_remove_debugfs_dir(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
unsigned int cpu)+{
unsigned int idx = cpumask_weight(policy->cpus) > 1 ? cpu : 0;if (!policy->cpu_debugfs[idx])return;debugfs_remove_recursive(policy->cpu_debugfs[idx]);Whey do we need recursive here? And what exactly does recursive will do?
If cpu is last user of policy, __cpufreq_remove_dev() have to remove debugfs directory and child file/directory of root debugfs directory. So, I used debugfs_remove_recursive() function.
You are calling this routine even when we aren't at the last cpu of a policy. And so, eventually you are calling this routine for a link you have created.
I'll call proper debugfs_remove*() function according to type of debugfs pointer.
- if cpu is last user of policy, call debugfs_remove_recursive()
- else, call debugfs_remove().
Have you actually tested your code? What kind of platform? What is cpu topology ?? And what exactly you tested..
I tested quad-core EXYNOS4412 SoC based on Cortex-A9 with Tizen platform. It is opereated on this environment but as you commnet, this test and environment isn't enough to verify this patchset.
- Testcase1 : Change cpufreq governor on runtime
- Testcase2 : Turn on/off CPU state on runtme
We are already on v6 and this patch still looks like the v1.. It still has lots of basic mistakes, which I don't expect so later in the series..
Its very difficult for me to review the same patchset again and again.. So, normally people might not review it well after v3-v4 and just trust the sender.. But I am nowhere close to getting that.. And so discouraged to review it..
I'm so sorry about this and thanks for previous your review sincerely.
Please review/test it well on multiple kind of systems if possible. Test on your intel laptop and see if it has multiple policy structures with multiple cpus in it.. cpuX/cpufreq/related_cpus gives you all cpus that share policy structure.
As you comment, I'll modify/test this patchset on various system with enough testcase and resend this patchset after a thorough review.
+}
same problem here too.
+static void cpufreq_move_debugfs_dir(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
unsigned int new_cpu)+{
struct dentry *old_entry, *new_entry;char new_dir_name[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN];unsigned int j, old_cpu = policy->cpu;if (!policy->cpu_debugfs[new_cpu])return;/** Remove symbolic link of debugfs directory except for debugfs* directory of old_cpu.*/for_each_present_cpu(j) {if (old_cpu == j)continue;debugfs_remove(policy->cpu_debugfs[j]);Why you need this? We aren't removing the earlier dentry at all here.
haven't answered this.
The debugfs entry of 'old_cpu' include child debugfs file(e.g., load_table) If cpu is last user of policy and core call __cpufre_remove_dev() to remove last cpu, core call cpufreq_move_debugfs_dir(). I have to move the data of debugfs directory/file and child data for 'old_cpu' to debugfs directory for 'new_cpu'.
If I remove earlier dentry of 'old_cpu', I can't get the child debugfs dir/file. So I didn't remove the earlier dentry of 'old_cpu'.
if (!new_entry) {pr_err("changing debugfs directory name failed\n");goto err_rename;}policy->cpu_debugfs[new_cpu] = new_entry;policy->cpu_debugfs[old_cpu] = NULL;/* Create again symbolic link of debugfs directory */for_each_present_cpu(j) {present_cpu?? We discussed this before.. You will break multi cluster systems.
My mistake. I'll use for_each_cpu() macro instead of for_each_present_cpu().
Go through earlier comments about this.. you are still wrong.. You need to run over cpus that are in this policy.. i.e. policy->cpus.
OK.
if (new_cpu == j)continue;@@ -1894,6 +2065,8 @@ int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data) cpufreq_driver = driver_data; write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
cpufreq_create_debugfs();Why you moved this to register_driver? It was fine at cpufreq_core_init()
If we moved this to cpufreq_core_int(), I have to create cpufreq_core_exit(). Do you agree about creating cpufreq_core_exit()(?
No you don't need that routine. Or in other words there isn't any exit for cpufreq core and so this directory must not be removed.
I understood on your previous comment as You said that I had to remove 'cpufreq' debugfs directory when cpufreq isn't used.
If the core execute cpufreq_create_debugfs() in cpufreq_core_init(), don't I need to remove 'cpufreq' debugfs directory without cpufreq_core_exit()?
I copied following from your patch sent on 5th july.. It didn't had any version number and so is difficult to distinguish..
@@ -1976,6 +2029,10 @@ static int __init cpufreq_core_init(void) BUG_ON(!cpufreq_global_kobject); register_syscore_ops(&cpufreq_syscore_ops);
cpufreq_debugfs = debugfs_create_dir("cpufreq", NULL);if (!cpufreq_debugfs)pr_debug("creating debugfs root failed\n");So, you just added this directory once.. So you must not remove it.
Where did I say you remove this directory.. To be clear, don't remove cpufreq debugfs directory at all. Play only with cpu directories inside this debugfs directory.
You're right. I'm sorry and I misunderstood.
Thanks, Chanwoo Choi