Message-ID: <53DA1916.4090806@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 06:23:18 -0400
From: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131028 Thunderbird/17.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
CC: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@redhat.com>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq, store_scaling_governor requires policy->rwsem
 to be held for duration of changing governors [v2]
References: <1406634362-811-1-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com> <1816455.s1k7EgIPj9@vostro.rjw.lan> <53D99D80.8090905@codeaurora.org> <3140593.vs3eOK6CdF@vostro.rjw.lan>
In-Reply-To: <3140593.vs3eOK6CdF@vostro.rjw.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@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
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/