[PATCH] ARM: smp_twd: reprogram twd based on clk notifier
Ulf Hansson
ulf.hansson at linaro.org
Fri Sep 7 07:59:40 EDT 2012
Hi Shawn and Mike,
In general I am in favor of this patch, but I also see some
corresponding problems to resolve. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I suppose most machines is relying on that it enough to only take care
of the notification by using "cpufreq_notify_transition" from their
cpufreq drivers. Thus those have to make sure the updates for smp_twd
clock is supported from within the cpufreq driver I suppose.
In other words the cpufreq drivers needs to do clk_get of "smp_twd"
clock and then do a set_rate on it when it's has changed, to trigger a
rate change notification. Is this what you also have in mind or do you
have any other idea of how this should work?
Kind regards
Ulf Hansson
On 7 September 2012 10:19, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo at linaro.org> wrote:
> From: Mike Turquette <mturquette at linaro.org>
>
> Running cpufreq driver on imx6q, the following warning is seen.
>
> $ BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/mutex.c:269
>
> <snip>
>
> stack backtrace:
> Backtrace:
> [<80011d64>] (dump_backtrace+0x0/0x10c) from [<803fc164>] (dump_stack+0x18/0x1c)
> r6:bf8142e0 r5:bf814000 r4:806ac794 r3:bf814000
> [<803fc14c>] (dump_stack+0x0/0x1c) from [<803fd444>] (print_usage_bug+0x250/0x2b
> 8)
> [<803fd1f4>] (print_usage_bug+0x0/0x2b8) from [<80060f90>] (mark_lock+0x56c/0x67
> 0)
> [<80060a24>] (mark_lock+0x0/0x670) from [<80061a20>] (__lock_acquire+0x98c/0x19b
> 4)
> [<80061094>] (__lock_acquire+0x0/0x19b4) from [<80062f14>] (lock_acquire+0x68/0x
> 7c)
> [<80062eac>] (lock_acquire+0x0/0x7c) from [<80400f28>] (mutex_lock_nested+0x78/0
> x344)
> r7:00000000 r6:bf872000 r5:805cc858 r4:805c2a04
> [<80400eb0>] (mutex_lock_nested+0x0/0x344) from [<803089ac>] (clk_get_rate+0x1c/
> 0x58)
> [<80308990>] (clk_get_rate+0x0/0x58) from [<80013c48>] (twd_update_frequency+0x1
> 8/0x50)
> r5:bf253d04 r4:805cadf4
> [<80013c30>] (twd_update_frequency+0x0/0x50) from [<80068e20>] (generic_smp_call
> _function_single_interrupt+0xd4/0x13c)
> r4:bf873ee0 r3:80013c30
> [<80068d4c>] (generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0x0/0x13c) from [<80013
> 34c>] (handle_IPI+0xc0/0x194)
> r8:00000001 r7:00000000 r6:80574e48 r5:bf872000 r4:80593958
> [<8001328c>] (handle_IPI+0x0/0x194) from [<800084e8>] (gic_handle_irq+0x58/0x60)
> r8:00000000 r7:bf873f8c r6:bf873f58 r5:80593070 r4:f4000100
> r3:00000005
> [<80008490>] (gic_handle_irq+0x0/0x60) from [<8000e124>] (__irq_svc+0x44/0x60)
> Exception stack(0xbf873f58 to 0xbf873fa0)
> 3f40: 00000001 00000001
> 3f60: 00000000 bf814000 bf872000 805cab48 80405aa4 80597648 00000000 412fc09a
> 3f80: bf872000 bf873fac bf873f70 bf873fa0 80063844 8000f1f8 20000013 ffffffff
> r6:ffffffff r5:20000013 r4:8000f1f8 r3:bf814000
> [<8000f1b8>] (default_idle+0x0/0x4c) from [<8000f428>] (cpu_idle+0x98/0x114)
> [<8000f390>] (cpu_idle+0x0/0x114) from [<803f9834>] (secondary_start_kernel+0x11
> c/0x140)
> [<803f9718>] (secondary_start_kernel+0x0/0x140) from [<103f9234>] (0x103f9234)
> r6:10c03c7d r5:0000001f r4:4f86806a r3:803f921c
>
> It looks that the warning is caused by that twd_update_frequency() gets
> called from an atomic context while it calls clk_get_rate() where
> a mutex gets held.
>
> To fix the warning, let's convert the existing code to use clk notifiers
> in place of CPUfreq notifiers. This works out nicely for Cortex-A9
> MPcore designs that scale all CPUs at the same frequency.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Turquette <mturquette at linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo at linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c | 32 +++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c
> index fef42b2..635e3ea 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c
> @@ -11,7 +11,6 @@
> #include <linux/init.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/clk.h>
> -#include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> #include <linux/delay.h>
> #include <linux/device.h>
> #include <linux/err.h>
> @@ -96,51 +95,46 @@ static void twd_timer_stop(struct clock_event_device *clk)
> disable_percpu_irq(clk->irq);
> }
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
> -
> /*
> * Updates clockevent frequency when the cpu frequency changes.
> * Called on the cpu that is changing frequency with interrupts disabled.
> */
> -static void twd_update_frequency(void *data)
> +static void twd_update_frequency(void *new_rate)
> {
> - twd_timer_rate = clk_get_rate(twd_clk);
> + twd_timer_rate = *((unsigned long *) new_rate);
>
> clockevents_update_freq(*__this_cpu_ptr(twd_evt), twd_timer_rate);
> }
>
> -static int twd_cpufreq_transition(struct notifier_block *nb,
> - unsigned long state, void *data)
> +static int twd_rate_change(struct notifier_block *nb,
> + unsigned long flags, void *data)
> {
> - struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs = data;
> + struct clk_notifier_data *cnd = data;
>
> /*
> * The twd clock events must be reprogrammed to account for the new
> * frequency. The timer is local to a cpu, so cross-call to the
> * changing cpu.
> */
> - if (state == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE || state == CPUFREQ_RESUMECHANGE)
> - smp_call_function_single(freqs->cpu, twd_update_frequency,
> - NULL, 1);
> + if (flags == POST_RATE_CHANGE)
> + smp_call_function(twd_update_frequency,
> + (void *)&cnd->new_rate, 1);
>
> return NOTIFY_OK;
> }
>
> -static struct notifier_block twd_cpufreq_nb = {
> - .notifier_call = twd_cpufreq_transition,
> +static struct notifier_block twd_clk_nb = {
> + .notifier_call = twd_rate_change,
> };
>
> -static int twd_cpufreq_init(void)
> +static int twd_clk_init(void)
> {
> if (twd_evt && *__this_cpu_ptr(twd_evt) && !IS_ERR(twd_clk))
> - return cpufreq_register_notifier(&twd_cpufreq_nb,
> - CPUFREQ_TRANSITION_NOTIFIER);
> + return clk_notifier_register(twd_clk, &twd_clk_nb);
>
> return 0;
> }
> -core_initcall(twd_cpufreq_init);
> -
> -#endif
> +core_initcall(twd_clk_init);
>
> static void __cpuinit twd_calibrate_rate(void)
> {
> --
> 1.7.5.4
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list