From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Prarit Bhargava Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: serialize calls to __cpufreq_governor() Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:50:23 -0400 Message-ID: <5429477F.3050008@redhat.com> References: <54294299.1060208@redhat.com> 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]:47171 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753228AbaI2Luj (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:50:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Lists linaro-kernel , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , =?UTF-8?B?Um9iZXJ0?= =?UTF-8?B?IFNjaMO2bmU=?= , Saravana Kannan On 09/29/2014 07:38 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 29 September 2014 16:59, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > >> This is exactly the same issue I mentioned a few weeks ago and traced back to >> 955ef4833574636819cd269cfbae12f79cbde63a which drops the lock around the >> CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT __cpufreq_governor() call. >> >> Just my two cents -- I don't think that adding a new lock/locking scheme is the >> way to fix this. > > Me and Robert are just inches away from fixing it. Just that the > remote testing by > Robert and patches from me aren't working well together.. I need to do > this myself > and have a board to reproduce it now.. But would take some time to get going... > > And yes, I am also against another lock here :) Send me what you have in mind -- I can always take a look and put it through tests as well. P. >