On 09/29/2014 07:38 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 29 September 2014 16:59, Prarit Bhargava prarit@redhat.com wrote:
This is exactly the same issue I mentioned a few weeks ago and traced back to 955ef4833574636819cd269cfbae12f79cbde63a which drops the lock around the CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT __cpufreq_governor() call.
Just my two cents -- I don't think that adding a new lock/locking scheme is the way to fix this.
Me and Robert are just inches away from fixing it. Just that the remote testing by Robert and patches from me aren't working well together.. I need to do this myself and have a board to reproduce it now.. But would take some time to get going...
And yes, I am also against another lock here :)
Send me what you have in mind -- I can always take a look and put it through tests as well.
P.