On 10/15/2015 09:05 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
The sysfs policy directory is postfixed currently with the CPU number
for which the policy was created, which isn't necessarily the first CPU
in related_cpus mask.
To make it more consistent and predictable, lets postfix the policy with
the first cpu in related-cpus mask.
Suggested-by: Saravana Kannan <skan...@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 4fa2215cc6ec..3fe13875565d 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1022,7 +1022,6 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy
*cpufreq_policy_alloc(unsigned int cpu)
{
struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
- int ret;
if (WARN_ON(!dev))
return NULL;
@@ -1040,13 +1039,6 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy
*cpufreq_policy_alloc(unsigned int cpu)
if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&policy->real_cpus, GFP_KERNEL))
goto err_free_rcpumask;
- ret = kobject_init_and_add(&policy->kobj, &ktype_cpufreq,
- cpufreq_global_kobject, "policy%u", cpu);
- if (ret) {
- pr_err("%s: failed to init policy->kobj: %d\n", __func__, ret);
- goto err_free_real_cpus;
- }
-
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&policy->policy_list);
init_rwsem(&policy->rwsem);
spin_lock_init(&policy->transition_lock);
@@ -1057,7 +1049,6 @@ static struct cpufreq_policy
*cpufreq_policy_alloc(unsigned int cpu)
policy->cpu = cpu;
return policy;
-err_free_real_cpus:
free_cpumask_var(policy->real_cpus);
Delete this line too? Does GCC not complain about unreachable code?
err_free_rcpumask:
free_cpumask_var(policy->related_cpus);
@@ -1163,6 +1154,16 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
/* Remember CPUs present at the policy creation time. */
cpumask_and(policy->real_cpus, policy->cpus, cpu_present_mask);
+
+ /* Initialize the kobject */
+ ret = kobject_init_and_add(&policy->kobj, &ktype_cpufreq,
+ cpufreq_global_kobject, "policy%u",
+ cpumask_first(policy->related_cpus));
+ if (ret) {
+ pr_err("%s: failed to init policy->kobj: %d\n",
+ __func__, ret);
+ goto out_exit_policy;
out_exit_policy label includes a call to cpufreq_policy_free(). That
function needs to be changed to not call cpufreq_policy_put_kobj() in
this case so that we don't try to kobject_put() an unallocated kobj.
Maybe you an call cpufreq_policy_put_kobj() in the error handling path
of this function? Basically split out kojb alloc and free from policy
alloc and free and alloc/free them around the same time
(cpufreq_remove_Dev() will have to also call cpufreq_policy_put_kobj()
when real_cpus is empty().
The refactor is just a suggestion. I'm looking at the latest code in a
gitweb and making comments. So, I might have missed some corner cases in
the refactor.
Also, it might be better to move the notifier from within
cpufreq_policy_put_kobj() to cpufreq_policy_free()? Seems more appropriate.
Thanks,
Saravana
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
