Cpufreq governor's stop and start operation should be kept in sequence.
If not, there will be unexpected behavior, for example:
There are 4 CPUs and policy->cpu=cpu0, cpu1/2/3 are linked to cpu0.
The normal sequence is as below:
1) Current governor is userspace, One application tries to set
governor to ondemand. It will call __cpufreq_set_policy in which it
will stop userspace governor and then start ondemand governor.
2) Current governor is userspace, Now cpu0 hotplugs in cpu3, It will
call cpufreq_add_policy_cpu in which it first stops userspace
governor, and then starts userspace governor.
Now if the sequence of above two cases interleaves, It becames
below sequence:
1) Application stops userspace governor
2) Hotplug stops userspace governor
3) Application starts ondemand governor
4) Hotplug starts a governor
In step 4, hotplug is supposed to start userspace governor, But now
the governor has been changed by application to ondemand, So hotplug
starts ondemand governor again !!!!
The solution is: Do not allow stop one policy's governor multi-times.
Governor stop should only do once for one policy, After it is stopped,
No other governor stop should be executed. also add one mutext to
protect __cpufreq_governor so governor operation can be kept in sequence.
Signed-off-by: Xiaoguang Chen <[email protected]>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/linux/cpufreq.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 2d53f47..6f5aa6f 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpufreq_policy *, cpufreq_cpu_data);
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(char[CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN], cpufreq_cpu_governor);
#endif
static DEFINE_RWLOCK(cpufreq_driver_lock);
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(cpufreq_governor_lock);
/*
* cpu_policy_rwsem is a per CPU reader-writer semaphore designed to cure
@@ -1562,6 +1563,21 @@ static int __cpufreq_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
pr_debug("__cpufreq_governor for CPU %u, event %u\n",
policy->cpu, event);
+
+ mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
+ if ((!policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP)) ||
+ (policy->governor_enabled && (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START))) {
+ mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
+
+ if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP)
+ policy->governor_enabled = false;
+ else if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START)
+ policy->governor_enabled = true;
+
+ mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
+
ret = policy->governor->governor(policy, event);
if (!ret) {
@@ -1569,6 +1585,14 @@ static int __cpufreq_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
policy->governor->initialized++;
else if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT)
policy->governor->initialized--;
+ } else {
+ /* Restore original values */
+ mutex_lock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
+ if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP)
+ policy->governor_enabled = true;
+ else if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_START)
+ policy->governor_enabled = false;
+ mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
}
/* we keep one module reference alive for
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
index 037d36a..1a81b74 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
@@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ struct cpufreq_policy {
unsigned int policy; /* see above */
struct cpufreq_governor *governor; /* see below */
void *governor_data;
+ bool governor_enabled; /* governor start/stop flag */
struct work_struct update; /* if update_policy() needs to be
* called, but you're in IRQ context */
--
1.8.0
On 19 June 2013 07:13, Xiaoguang Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are 4 CPUs and policy->cpu=cpu0, cpu1/2/3 are linked to cpu0.
> The normal sequence is as below:
I thought Rafael asked to write cpu0 as CPU0, ...
2013/6/19 Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>:
> On 19 June 2013 07:13, Xiaoguang Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There are 4 CPUs and policy->cpu=cpu0, cpu1/2/3 are linked to cpu0.
>> The normal sequence is as below:
>
> I thought Rafael asked to write cpu0 as CPU0, ...
I changed "cpus" to "CPUs" as Rafael suggested(Please spell cpus as
"CPUs". And please start sequences from capitals.)
do I need to change other "cpu" to "CPU"?
On 19 June 2013 10:45, Xiaoguang Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2013/6/19 Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>:
>> On 19 June 2013 07:13, Xiaoguang Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> There are 4 CPUs and policy->cpu=cpu0, cpu1/2/3 are linked to cpu0.
>>> The normal sequence is as below:
>>
>> I thought Rafael asked to write cpu0 as CPU0, ...
>
> I changed "cpus" to "CPUs" as Rafael suggested(Please spell cpus as
> "CPUs". And please start sequences from capitals.)
> do I need to change other "cpu" to "CPU"?
I am not really sure what he meant by "sequence", but I guess its regarding
cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, etc... and not cpu .
2013/6/19 Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>:
> On 19 June 2013 10:45, Xiaoguang Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 2013/6/19 Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>:
>>> On 19 June 2013 07:13, Xiaoguang Chen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> There are 4 CPUs and policy->cpu=cpu0, cpu1/2/3 are linked to cpu0.
>>>> The normal sequence is as below:
>>>
>>> I thought Rafael asked to write cpu0 as CPU0, ...
>>
>> I changed "cpus" to "CPUs" as Rafael suggested(Please spell cpus as
>> "CPUs". And please start sequences from capitals.)
>> do I need to change other "cpu" to "CPU"?
>
> I am not really sure what he meant by "sequence", but I guess its regarding
> cpu0, cpu1, cpu2, etc... and not cpu .
Ok, it's not a big deal, I'll change it.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html