Hi Viresh,
I have been testing the patch set and found one of the issues. Please see the comment below.
On 19/04/17 06:29, Viresh Kumar wrote:
'allowed_cpus' is a copy of policy->related_cpus and can be replaced by it directly. At some places we are only concerned about online CPUs and policy->cpus can be used there.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 77 ++++++++++++------------------------------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c index ce387f62c93e..1097162f7f8a 100644 --- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c @@ -74,7 +74,6 @@ struct power_table {
- frequency.
- @max_level: maximum cooling level. One less than total number of valid
- cpufreq frequencies.
- @allowed_cpus: all the cpus involved for this cpufreq_cooling_device.
- @node: list_head to link all cpufreq_cooling_device together.
- @last_load: load measured by the latest call to cpufreq_get_requested_power()
- @time_in_idle: previous reading of the absolute time that this cpu was idle
@@ -97,7 +96,6 @@ struct cpufreq_cooling_device { unsigned int clipped_freq; unsigned int max_level; unsigned int *freq_table; /* In descending order */
- struct cpumask allowed_cpus; struct list_head node; u32 last_load; u64 *time_in_idle;
@@ -161,7 +159,7 @@ static int cpufreq_thermal_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
mutex_lock(&cooling_list_lock); list_for_each_entry(cpufreq_cdev, &cpufreq_cdev_list, node) {
if (!cpumask_test_cpu(policy->cpu, &cpufreq_cdev->allowed_cpus))
if (policy != cpufreq_cdev->policy)
The policy pointer forwarded from cpufreq_update_policy() is a local variable 'new_policy' so cannot be compared with pinned policy pointer in the cooling device. You should do the cpumask test like before: if (!cpumask_test_cpu(policy->cpu, cpufreq_cdev->policy->related_cpus))
But there is something still in the patch set... I will try to check it tomorrow.
Best regards, Lukasz