Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 14:10:04 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To:     zhuguangqing83@gmail.com
Cc:     lukasz.luba@arm.com, quentin.perret@arm.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        pavel@ucw.cz, len.brown@intel.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        zhuguangqing <zhuguangqing@xiaomi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / EM: consult something about cpumask in
 em_dev_register_perf_domain
Message-ID: <20201012131004.GB3366383@google.com>
References: <20201012124136.4147-1-zhuguangqing83@gmail.com>
 <20201012130501.GA3366383@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201012130501.GA3366383@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Monday 12 Oct 2020 at 14:05:01 (+0100), Quentin Perret wrote:
> > 3, The third question is, how can we ensure cpu_dev as follows is not
> > NULL? If we can't ensure that, maybe we should add a check before using
> > it.
> > /kernel/power/energy_model.c
> > 174) static int em_create_pd(struct device *dev, int nr_states,
> > 175)                    struct em_data_callback *cb, cpumask_t *cpus)
> > 176) {
> > 199)    if (_is_cpu_device(dev))
> > 200)            for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus) {
> > 201)                    cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
> > 202)                    cpu_dev->em_pd = pd;
> > 203)            }
> 
> And that should not be necessary as we check for the !dev case at the
> top of em_dev_register_perf_domain(). Or were you thinking about
> something else?

Oh I think I read that one wrong, but the conclusion should be the same,
at least on Arm64 -- all _possible_ CPUs should be registered early
enough for that not to be an issue.

Did you observe anything wrong there for your use-case?

Thanks,
Quentin