Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2691942.bH9KnLg61H@kreacher> <AM0PR04MB44814D98FDF152FB6D186B13885A0@AM0PR04MB4481.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR04MB44814D98FDF152FB6D186B13885A0@AM0PR04MB4481.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:49:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0j7khsPq_Gye8vutmK8_=z1ZUCfZ4t1ENtmOdVR4qWQeg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid leaving stale IRQ work items during CPU offline
To:     Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Anson Huang <anson.huang@nxp.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 2:53 PM Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com> wrote:
>
> > Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid leaving stale IRQ work items during CPU
> > offline
> >
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >
> > The scheduler code calling cpufreq_update_util() may run during CPU offline
> > on the target CPU after the IRQ work lists have been flushed for it, so the
> > target CPU should be prevented from running code that may queue up an IRQ
> > work item on it at that point.
> >
> > Unfortunately, that may not be the case if dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu is set
> > for at least one cpufreq policy in the system, because that allows the CPU
> > going offline to run the utilization update callback of the cpufreq governor on
> > behalf of another (online) CPU in some cases.
> >
> > If that happens, the cpufreq governor callback may queue up an IRQ work on
> > the CPU running it, which is going offline, and the IRQ work will not be flushed
>
> "will" -> "might"

Well, I'm not sure, but OK.