Thread (14 messages) 14 messages, 4 authors, 2018-02-15

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_t 
cookie)
  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
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help