From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753415AbcBBGgL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 2 Feb 2016 01:36:11 -0500
Received: from mail-pf0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176]:33026 "EHLO
	mail-pf0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753167AbcBBGgF (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 2 Feb 2016 01:36:05 -0500
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 12:06:02 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/19] cpufreq: assert policy->rwsem is held in
 __cpufreq_governor
Message-ID: <20160202063602.GG31828@vireshk>
References: <1452533760-13787-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com>
 <20160112102025.GC1084@ubuntu>
 <56AC04E3.8090900@codeaurora.org>
 <1703921.2AHaiQoggk@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <20160201060943.GH13476@vireshk>
 <CAJZ5v0gzKkoKsbv_KG0qL-7=j4a3DU-nOTCG71fZcoumQ0UZUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <56AFBEE5.70501@codeaurora.org>
 <CAJZ5v0iTZqk-Rokiq_C0bmwYEy+mPxZCGS6MarEPFp=A=wuchg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0iTZqk-Rokiq_C0bmwYEy+mPxZCGS6MarEPFp=A=wuchg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 01-02-16, 22:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "the sysfs lock" here?  The policy rwsem
> or something else?

He perhaps referred to the s_active.lock that we see in traces.

-- 
viresh