Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-2761-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2023 17:58:29 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	rafael@kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rui.zhang@intel.com,
	amit.kucheria@verdurent.com, amit.kachhap@gmail.com,
	daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
	len.brown@intel.com, pavel@ucw.cz, mhiramat@kernel.org,
	wvw@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/23] PM: EM: Find first CPU active while updating
 OPP efficiency
Message-ID: <20231217175829.a6hqz7mqlvrujsvs@airbuntu>
References: <20231129110853.94344-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
 <20231129110853.94344-4-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231129110853.94344-4-lukasz.luba@arm.com>

On 11/29/23 11:08, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> The Energy Model might be updated at runtime and the energy efficiency
> for each OPP may change. Thus, there is a need to update also the
> cpufreq framework and make it aligned to the new values. In order to
> do that, use a first active CPU from the Performance Domain. This is
> needed since the first CPU in the cpumask might be offline when we
> run this code path.

I didn't understand the problem here. It seems you're fixing a race, but the
description is not clear to me what the race is.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/power/energy_model.c | 11 +++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/power/energy_model.c b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
> index 42486674b834..aa7c89f9e115 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c
> +++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
> @@ -243,12 +243,19 @@ em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_state *table)
>  	struct em_perf_domain *pd = dev->em_pd;
>  	struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>  	int found = 0;
> -	int i;
> +	int i, cpu;
>  
>  	if (!_is_cpu_device(dev) || !pd)
>  		return;
>  
> -	policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpumask_first(em_span_cpus(pd)));
> +	/* Try to get a CPU which is active and in this PD */
> +	cpu = cpumask_first_and(em_span_cpus(pd), cpu_active_mask);
> +	if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) {
> +		dev_warn(dev, "EM: No online CPU for CPUFreq policy\n");
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);

Shouldn't policy be NULL here if all policy->realted_cpus were offlined?


Cheers

--
Qais Yousef

>  	if (!policy) {
>  		dev_warn(dev, "EM: Access to CPUFreq policy failed\n");
>  		return;
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>