On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:24 AM Quentin Perret <quentin.per...@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Sunday 09 Sep 2018 at 22:13:52 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:29 PM Quentin Perret <quentin.per...@arm.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Friday 07 Sep 2018 at 10:52:01 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > Well, why don't you implement it as something like "if the governor
> > > > changes
> > > > from sugov to something else (or the other way around), call this
> > > > function
> > > > from the scheduler"?
> > >
> > > I just gave it a try and ended up with the diff below. It's basically
> > > the exact same patch with a direct function call instead of a notifier.
> > > (I also tried the sugov_start/stop thing I keep mentioning but it is
> > > more complex, so let's see if the simplest solution could work first).
> > >
> > > What do you think ?
> >
> > This generally works for me from the cpufreq perspective, but I would
> > add "cpufreq" to the name of the new function, that is call it
> > something like sched_cpufreq_governor_change().
>
> Ok, no problem.
>
> > Also do you really need the extra work item? Governor changes are
> > carried out in process context anyway.
>
> Ah, good point, I can remove that. I just tried and got the following
> lock warning on boot, though:
>
> [ 2.518684] ============================================
> [ 2.523942] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> [ 2.529200] 4.18.0-rc6-00086-g940e7a9fd5ec #10 Not tainted
> [ 2.534630] --------------------------------------------
> [ 2.539888] kworker/2:3/1349 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 2.545059] (____ptrval____) (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at:
> rebuild_sched_domains_locked+0x2c/0x598
> [ 2.554559]
> [ 2.554559] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 2.560332] (____ptrval____) (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at:
> cpufreq_register_driver+0x80/0x1d0
> [ 2.569396]
> [ 2.569396] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 2.575858] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 2.575858]
> [ 2.581717] CPU0
> [ 2.584135] ----
> [ 2.586553] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
> [ 2.590785] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
> [ 2.595017]
> [ 2.595017] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [ 2.595017]
> [ 2.600877] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
>
> That seems to happen because cpufreq_register_driver() calls
> cpus_read_lock(), which is then called again by rebuild_sched_domains()
> down the line. So it might just be a missing lock nesting notation as
> the warning suggests ?
>
> I'll have a look.
It only is nested in the _register_driver() code path, otherwise it may not be.
Using the work item may be the most straightforward way to deal with
that, but then I would add a comment to explain what's up.
Thanks,
Rafael
