Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:57:29 -0400 | From | Prarit Bhargava <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpufreq, store_scaling_governor requires policy->rwsem to be held for duration of changing governors [v2] |
| |
On 07/31/2014 12:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, July 31, 2014 06:23:18 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >> >> 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. > > In any case that's too late for 3.16 final, unless there's an -rc8. > > Thanks for doing that work!
Ugh ... I tried this (yet another) large system and hit another panic :(.
I'm investigating now, and I'm hoping this is just something "new".
P.
> > Rafael >
| |