From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Prarit Bhargava Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq, store_scaling_governor requires policy->rwsem to be held for duration of changing governors [v2] Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:23:18 -0400 Message-ID: <53DA1916.4090806@redhat.com> References: <1406634362-811-1-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com> <1816455.s1k7EgIPj9@vostro.rjw.lan> <53D99D80.8090905@codeaurora.org> <3140593.vs3eOK6CdF@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42544 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752288AbaGaKXY (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:23:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <3140593.vs3eOK6CdF@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Saravana Kannan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Viresh Kumar , Lenny Szubowicz , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 07/30/2014 10:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 06:36:00 PM Saravana Kannan wrote: >> On 07/30/2014 02:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 10:18:25 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>>> >>>> On 07/29/2014 08:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 07:46:02 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>> >>> [cut] >>> >>>>>> This patch effectively reverts commit 955ef483. >> >> The issue reported in this patch is valid. We are seeing that internally >> too. I believe I reported it in another thread (within the past month). >> >> However, the original patch fixes a real deadlock issue (I'm too tired >> to look it up now). We can revet the original, but it's going to bring >> back the original issue. I just want to make sure Prarit and Raphael >> realize this before proceeding. >> >> I do have plans for a proper fix for the mainline (not stable branches), >> but plan to do that after the current set of suspend/hotplug patches go >> through. The fix would be easier to make after that. >> >>>>> >>>>> OK, I'm convinced by this. >>>>> >>>>> I suppose we should push it for -stable from 3.10 through 3.15.x, right? >>>> >>>> Rafael, I think that is a good idea. I'm not sure what the protocol is for >>>> adding stable@kernel.org though ... Rafael, let me (again) re-write the patch description. I think Saravana has raised an important issue that I have not clearly identified why it is safe to remove this code in my patch description. Also, I want to clearly identify the appropriate -stable releases to push this out to. I'll submit a [v3] later today or tomorrow. P. > > Rafael >