Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Date | Mon, 8 Jul 2019 12:47:54 +0200 | Subject | Re: cpufreq notifiers break suspend -- Re: suspend broken in next-20190704 on Thinkpad X60 |
| |
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:28 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 08-07-19, 10:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Pavel has tested the latest version of the patch series AFAICS. > > > > The locking added by the commit in question to > > refresh_frequency_limits() requires an update of > > cpufreq_update_policy(), or it will deadlock in there because of the > > lock acquired by cpufreq_cpu_get() if I haven't missed anything. > > Ah, looks quite straight forward. > > @Pavel: Can you please try this diff ? > > -------------------------8<------------------------- > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 9f68d0f306b8..4d6043ee7834 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1109,16 +1109,12 @@ void refresh_frequency_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > { > struct cpufreq_policy new_policy; > > - down_write(&policy->rwsem); > - > if (!policy_is_inactive(policy)) { > new_policy = *policy; > pr_debug("updating policy for CPU %u\n", policy->cpu); > > cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy); > } > - > - up_write(&policy->rwsem); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(refresh_frequency_limits); > > @@ -1128,7 +1124,9 @@ static void handle_update(struct work_struct *work) > container_of(work, struct cpufreq_policy, update); > > pr_debug("handle_update for cpu %u called\n", policy->cpu); > + down_write(&policy->rwsem); > refresh_frequency_limits(policy); > + up_write(&policy->rwsem); > } > > -------------------------8<------------------------- > > Though it makes me wonder why I didn't hit this thing. I was using the > cpu_cooling device the other day, which calls cpufreq_update_policy() > very frequently on heat-up. And I had a hair dryer blowing over my > board to heat it up. Lemme check that again :) > > @Rafael: You want me to send a new diff patch with Fixes tag this time > if this works out fine ?
I would prefer the original patch to be updated to avoid possible bisection woes in the future.
| |