On 02/25/2014 10:02 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:

On 26 February 2014 07:18, Saravana Kannan [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 02/25/2014 02:41 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

quoted

And is "fully initialized" actually well defined?

The point in add dev/hot plug path after which we will no longer change
policy fields without sending further CPUFREQ_UPDATE_POLICY_CPU /
CPUFRE_NOTIFY notifiers.

Okay..

quoted

Pretty much the end of __cpufreq_add_dev() so that it's after:
- cpufreq_init_policy()
- And the update of userpolicy fields that after thie init call

No. In that case it can be considered initialized before cpufreq_init_policy().
As we do send CPUFREQ_NOTIFY after that from cpufreq_init_policy()->
cpufreq_set_policy().

Ok, valid hole in my definition of "fully initialized".

There are two types of fields within policy, some are very basic: cpu/min/max/
affected_cpus/related_cpus

some are advanced: sysfs/governors/..

And as a rule you have to get policy->rwsem lock before accessing policy
members. We might not have followed it very well for small things like cpu.

And so if you are doing anything over that, please use a lock and that is
already present in cpufreq_update_policy().

With my latest patchset that I sent yesterday, locking is improved and now
a policy will be usable only after the rwsem is released. And that should be
fine. And so making it available in the per-cpu variable after all the necessary
fields are filled looks fine to me. And so I don't think we need to move it
after call to cpufreq_init_policy(maybe a better name to this function is
required)..

I'll take a closer look. Internal tree cpufreq code is in 3.12, so 
back-porting all the cpufreq changes and testing it can take a bit of 
time. Will get back on this.

-Saravana


-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation