Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Date | Tue, 7 Mar 2023 14:06:31 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND] cpuidle: psci: Iterate backwards over list in psci_pd_remove() |
| |
On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 8:41 AM Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> wrote: > > In case that psci_pd_init_topology() fails for some reason, > psci_pd_remove() will be responsible for deleting provider and removing > genpd from psci_pd_providers list. There will be a failure when removing > the cluster PD, because the cpu (child) PDs haven't been removed. > > [ 0.050232] CPUidle PSCI: init PM domain cpu0 > [ 0.050278] CPUidle PSCI: init PM domain cpu1 > [ 0.050329] CPUidle PSCI: init PM domain cpu2 > [ 0.050370] CPUidle PSCI: init PM domain cpu3 > [ 0.050422] CPUidle PSCI: init PM domain cpu-cluster0 > [ 0.050475] PM: genpd_remove: unable to remove cpu-cluster0 > [ 0.051412] PM: genpd_remove: removed cpu3 > [ 0.051449] PM: genpd_remove: removed cpu2 > [ 0.051499] PM: genpd_remove: removed cpu1 > [ 0.051546] PM: genpd_remove: removed cpu0 > > Fix the problem by iterating the provider list reversely, so that parent > PD gets removed after child's PDs like below. > > [ 0.029052] CPUidle PSCI: init PM domain cpu0 > [ 0.029076] CPUidle PSCI: init PM domain cpu1 > [ 0.029103] CPUidle PSCI: init PM domain cpu2 > [ 0.029124] CPUidle PSCI: init PM domain cpu3 > [ 0.029151] CPUidle PSCI: init PM domain cpu-cluster0 > [ 0.029647] PM: genpd_remove: removed cpu0 > [ 0.029666] PM: genpd_remove: removed cpu1 > [ 0.029690] PM: genpd_remove: removed cpu2 > [ 0.029714] PM: genpd_remove: removed cpu3 > [ 0.029738] PM: genpd_remove: removed cpu-cluster0 > > Fixes: a65a397f2451 ("cpuidle: psci: Add support for PM domains by using genpd")
So I guess there should be Cc: stable for 5.10 and later?
> Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> > --- > Hi Rafael, > > This is a resend of the patch [1]. Could you help pick it up or let me > know if there is anything need to be improved, thanks!
Is this regarded as 6.3-rc material, or can it wait for 6.4?
| |