Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: skip cpufreq resume if it's not suspended
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <hidden>
Date: 2018-02-02 11:56:01
Also in:
lkml
On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 9:53:14 PM CET Bo Yan wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On 01/23/2018 06:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:quoted
On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 10:57:55 PM CET Bo Yan wrote:quoted
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 41d148af7748..95b1c4afe14e 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c@@ -1680,6 +1680,10 @@ void cpufreq_resume(void) if (!cpufreq_driver) return; + if (unlikely(!cpufreq_suspended)) { + pr_warn("%s: resume after failing suspend\n", __func__); + return; + } cpufreq_suspended = false; if (!has_target() && !cpufreq_driver->resume)Good catch, but rather than doing this it would be better to avoid calling cpufreq_resume() at all if cpufreq_suspend() has not been called.Yes, I thought about that, but there is no good way to skip over it without introducing another flag. cpufreq_resume is called by dpm_resume, cpufreq_suspend is called by dpm_suspend. In the failure case, dpm_resume is called, but dpm_suspend is not. So on a higher level it's already unbalanced. One possibility is to rely on the pm_transition flag. So something like:diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c index dc259d20c967..8469e6fc2b2c 100644 --- a/drivers/base/power/main.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c@@ -842,6 +842,7 @@ static void async_resume(void *data, async_cookie_tcookie) void dpm_resume(pm_message_t state) { struct device *dev; + bool suspended = (pm_transition.event != PM_EVENT_ON); ktime_t starttime = ktime_get(); trace_suspend_resume(TPS("dpm_resume"), state.event, true);@@ -885,7 +886,8 @@ void dpm_resume(pm_message_t state) async_synchronize_full(); dpm_show_time(starttime, state, NULL); - cpufreq_resume(); + if (likely(suspended)) + cpufreq_resume(); trace_suspend_resume(TPS("dpm_resume"), state.event, false); }
I was thinking about something else. Anyway, I think your original patch is OK too, but without printing the message. Just combine the cpufreq_suspended check with the cpufreq_driver one and the unlikely() thing is not necessary. Thanks, Rafael