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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox