From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux@brodo.de, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com
Subject: Re: 2.6.14-git3: scheduling while atomic from cpufreq on Athlon64
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 14:49:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1130874570.22089.11.camel@mindpipe> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051101111417.A31379@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 11:14 -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 08:07:19PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > of taking cpucontrol lock in __cpufreq_driver_target().
> >
> > Yes, that's it.
> >
> > > The reason is we now enter the same code path from the cpu_up() and cpu_down()
> > > generated cpu notifier callbacks and ends up trying to lock when the
> > > call path already has the cpucontrol lock.
> > >
> > > Its happening because we do set_cpus_allowed() in powernowk8_target().
> >
> > Unfortunately, powernowk8_target() calls schedule() right after
> > set_cpus_allowed(), so it throws "scheduling while atomic" on every call,
> > because of the preempt_disable()/_enable() around it.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Rafael
> >
>
> Thanks Rafael,
>
> could you try this patch instead? I hate to keep these state variables
> and thats why i went with the preempt approach, too bad it seems it wont
> work for more than just the case you mentioned.
>
> seems ugly, but i dont find a better looking cure...
It can't possibly be uglier than disabling preemption to work around a
locking bug.
Lee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-01 19:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-31 15:06 2.6.14-git3: scheduling while atomic from cpufreq on Athlon64 Rafael J. Wysocki
2005-10-31 19:34 ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-31 19:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2005-10-31 20:42 ` Ashok Raj
2005-11-01 19:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2005-11-01 19:14 ` Ashok Raj
2005-11-01 19:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2005-11-01 20:00 ` Ashok Raj
2005-11-01 19:49 ` Lee Revell [this message]
2005-11-04 22:30 ` Andrew Morton
2005-11-05 0:00 ` Ashok Raj
2005-11-05 23:19 ` Ashok Raj
2005-11-05 23:33 ` Andrew Morton
2005-11-05 23:54 ` Ashok Raj
2005-11-06 0:06 ` Andrew Morton
2005-11-06 4:32 ` Keith Owens
2005-10-31 21:42 ` [patch] preempt-trace.patch Ingo Molnar
2005-11-01 19:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2005-11-02 6:27 ` 2.6.14-git3: scheduling while atomic from cpufreq on Athlon64 Dave Jones
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1130874570.22089.11.camel@mindpipe \
--to=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=davej@codemonkey.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@brodo.de \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.