On 03/19/2012 11:47 AM, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
> This patch adds support for generic cpu thermal cooling low level
> implementations using cpuhotplug based on the thermal level requested
> from user. Different cpu related cooling devices can be registered by the
> user and the binding of these cooling devices to the corresponding
> trip points can be easily done as the registration APIs return the
> cooling device pointer. The user of these APIs are responsible for
> passing the cpumask.
>
I am really not aware of the cpu thermal cooling stuff, but since this patch
deals with CPU Hotplug (which I am interested in), I have some questions
below..
> Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kach...@linaro.org>
> +
> +static int cpuhotplug_get_cur_state(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev,
> + unsigned long *state)
> +{
> + int ret = -EINVAL;
> + struct hotplug_cooling_device *hotplug_dev;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&cooling_cpuhotplug_lock);
> + list_for_each_entry(hotplug_dev, &cooling_cpuhotplug_list, node) {
> + if (hotplug_dev && hotplug_dev->cool_dev == cdev) {
> + *state = hotplug_dev->hotplug_state;
> + ret = 0;
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&cooling_cpuhotplug_lock);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +/*This cooling may be as ACTIVE type*/
> +static int cpuhotplug_set_cur_state(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev,
> + unsigned long state)
> +{
> + int cpuid, this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
What prevents this task from being migrated to another CPU?
IOW, what ensures that 'this_cpu' remains valid throughout this function?
I see that you are acquiring mutex locks below.. So this is definitely not
a preempt disabled section.. so I guess my question above is valid..
Or is this code bound to a particular cpu?
> + struct hotplug_cooling_device *hotplug_dev;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&cooling_cpuhotplug_lock);
> + list_for_each_entry(hotplug_dev, &cooling_cpuhotplug_list, node)
> + if (hotplug_dev && hotplug_dev->cool_dev == cdev)
> + break;
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&cooling_cpuhotplug_lock);
> + if (!hotplug_dev || hotplug_dev->cool_dev != cdev)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (hotplug_dev->hotplug_state == state)
> + return 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * This cooling device may be of type ACTIVE, so state field can
> + * be 0 or 1
> + */
> + if (state == 1) {
> + for_each_cpu(cpuid, hotplug_dev->allowed_cpus) {
> + if (cpu_online(cpuid) && (cpuid != this_cpu))
What prevents the cpu numbered cpuid from being taken down right at this moment?
Don't you need explicit synchronization with CPU Hotplug using something like
get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() here?
> + cpu_down(cpuid);
> + }
> + } else if (state == 0) {
> + for_each_cpu(cpuid, hotplug_dev->allowed_cpus) {
> + if (!cpu_online(cpuid) && (cpuid != this_cpu))
Same here.
> + cpu_up(cpuid);
> + }
> + } else {
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + hotplug_dev->hotplug_state = state;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +/* bind hotplug callbacks to cpu hotplug cooling device */
> +static struct thermal_cooling_device_ops cpuhotplug_cooling_ops = {
> + .get_max_state = cpuhotplug_get_max_state,
> + .get_cur_state = cpuhotplug_get_cur_state,
> + .set_cur_state = cpuhotplug_set_cur_state,
> +};
> +
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
