On 07/31/2014 04:24 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On 07/31/2014 11:26 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >> >> >> On 07/31/2014 02:38 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 01:57:29 PM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>>> >>>> On 07/31/2014 12:36 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 06:23:18 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 07/30/2014 10:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 06:36:00 PM Saravana Kannan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 07/30/2014 02:40 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 30, 2014 10:18:25 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 07/29/2014 08:03 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 07:46:02 AM Prarit Bhargava wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [cut] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This patch effectively reverts commit 955ef483. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The issue reported in this patch is valid. We are seeing that >>>>>>>> internally >>>>>>>> too. I believe I reported it in another thread (within the past month). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, the original patch fixes a real deadlock issue (I'm too tired >>>>>>>> to look it up now). We can revet the original, but it's going to bring >>>>>>>> back the original issue. I just want to make sure Prarit and Raphael >>>>>>>> realize this before proceeding. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do have plans for a proper fix for the mainline (not stable >>>>>>>> branches), >>>>>>>> but plan to do that after the current set of suspend/hotplug patches go >>>>>>>> through. The fix would be easier to make after that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> OK, I'm convinced by this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I suppose we should push it for -stable from 3.10 through 3.15.x, >>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rafael, I think that is a good idea. I'm not sure what the protocol >>>>>>>>>> is for >>>>>>>>>> adding sta...@kernel.org though ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafael, let me (again) re-write the patch description. I think Saravana >>>>>> has >>>>>> raised an important issue that I have not clearly identified why it is >>>>>> safe to >>>>>> remove this code in my patch description. Also, I want to clearly >>>>>> identify the >>>>>> appropriate -stable releases to push this out to. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll submit a [v3] later today or tomorrow. >>>>> >>>>> In any case that's too late for 3.16 final, unless there's an -rc8. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for doing that work! >>>> >>>> Ugh ... I tried this (yet another) large system and hit another panic :(. >>>> >>>> I'm investigating now, and I'm hoping this is just something "new". >>> >>> Well, I've applied your patch as is and I can push it to Linus. >>> >>> However, if you want to update the changelog, I'll not do that, but in that >>> case the patch will have to wait for the next week. >> >> Rafael, please let it wait for next week. I _need_ to make sure this is >> correct >> and I'd rather not pushed something half-done. >> > > Prarit, > > I'm not an expert on sysfs locking, but I would think the specific sysfs lock > would depend on the file/attribute group. So, can you please try to hotplug a > core in/out (to trigger the POLICY_EXIT) and then read a sysfs file exported > by > the governor? scaling_governor doesn't cut it since that file is not removed > on > policy exit event to governor. If it's ondemand, try reading/write it's > sampling > rate file.
Thanks Saravana -- will do. I will get back to you shortly on this. P. > > -Saravana > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
