From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] Take care of cpufreq lockdep issues (take 2) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:54:27 +0200 Message-ID: <20090703065427.GA32687@elte.hu> References: <20090703000829.735976000@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090703000829.735976000-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: venkatesh.pallipadi-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org Cc: Dave Jones , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, cpufreq-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-testers-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Dave Young , Pekka Enberg , Mathieu Desnoyers , Thomas Renninger * venkatesh.pallipadi-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote: > Since recent chanegs to ondemand and conservative governor, there > have been multiple reports of lockdep issues in cpufreq. Patch > series takes care of these problems. > > This is the next attempt following the one here, which was not a > complete fix. > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.3/01073.html > > I am currently running some stress tests to make sure there are no > issues with these patches. But, wanted to send them out for > review/comments/testing before I head out for the long weekend. > > If this patchset seems sane, the first patch in the patchset > should also get into 30.stable. Btw., FYI, because my test-systems were frequently triggering those bugs, i kept testing the following series from you and Mathieu in -tip: ecf8b04: cpufreq: Define dbs_mutex purpose and cleanup its usage conservative gov b08c597: cpufreq: Define dbs_mutex purpose and cleanup its usage 0807e30: cpufreq: remove rwsem lock from CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP call (second call site) So that fix-series, while probably not complete (given that you sent a v2 series), worked well in practice and gets my: Tested-by: Ingo Molnar Is the delta between this (tested) series and your v2 version significant? If not it might make sense to shape it as a delta patch to the v1 series, if that looks clean enough - to preserve testing results. Ingo