Re: [patch 0/4] Take care of cpufreq lockdep issues (take 2)

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com> 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 <mingo@elte.hu>

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