On 06/05/2015 08:30 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 04-06-15, 10:44, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
On 06/03/2015 03:57 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Preeti recently highlighted [1] some issues in cpufreq core locking with respect to governors. I wanted to solve them after we have simplified the hotplug paths in cpufreq core with my latest patches, but now that she has poked me, I have done some work in that area.
I am trying to solve only a part of the bigger problem (in a way that I feel is the right way ahead). The first patches restructures code to make it more readable and the last patch does all the major changes. The logs in that one should be good enough to explain why and what I am doing.
The first two shouldn't bring any functional change and so can be applied early if you are confident about them.
@Preeti: I would like you to test these patches. These should get rid of the crashes you were facing but may generate a WARN() from line 447 of cpufreq_governor.c, if the sequence is wrong. That has to be fixed separately.
Line 447: WARN_ON(!dbs_data && (event != CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT))
Hi Preeti,
Thanks for giving your RBY tags for all the patches, would you also like to give Tested-by's if you have done any testing on these.
That is just to confirm it hasn't broken things any further and that we haven't seen any crashes in races between INIT/EXIT/START/STOP/LIMITS.
Let me run a fair bit of tests today and confirm this.
Regards Preeti U Murthy