lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 0/4] Take care of cpufreq lockdep issues (take 2)

* venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com> wrote:

> Since recent chanegs to ondemand and conservative governor, there
> have been multiple reports of lockdep issues in cpufreq. Patch
> series takes care of these problems.
>
> This is the next attempt following the one here, which was not a
> complete fix.
> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.3/01073.html
>
> I am currently running some stress tests to make sure there are no
> issues with these patches. But, wanted to send them out for
> review/comments/testing before I head out for the long weekend.
>
> If this patchset seems sane, the first patch in the patchset
> should also get into 30.stable.

Btw., FYI, because my test-systems were frequently triggering those
bugs, i kept testing the following series from you and Mathieu in
-tip:

ecf8b04: cpufreq: Define dbs_mutex purpose and cleanup its usage conservative gov
b08c597: cpufreq: Define dbs_mutex purpose and cleanup its usage
0807e30: cpufreq: remove rwsem lock from CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP call (second call site)

So that fix-series, while probably not complete (given that you sent
a v2 series), worked well in practice and gets my:

Tested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Is the delta between this (tested) series and your v2 version
significant? If not it might make sense to shape it as a delta patch
to the v1 series, if that looks clean enough - to preserve testing
results.

Ingo



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-07-03 08:57    [W:0.127 / U:1.756 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site