On 6 August 2014 03:36, Saravana Kannan <skan...@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Stephen and I looked into this. This is not a sysfs framework difference.
> The reason we don't have this issue when we use global tunables is because
> we add the attribute group to the cpufreq_global_kobject and that kobject
> doesn't have a kobj_type ops similar to the per policy kobject. So,
> read/write to those attributes do NOT go through the generic show/store ops
> that wrap every other cpufreq framework attribute read/writes.
>
> So, none of those read/write do any kind of locking. They don't race with
> POLICY_EXIT (because we remove the sysfs group first thing in POLICY_EXIT)
> but might still race with START/STOPs (not sure, haven't looked closely
> yet).
>
> For example, writing to sampling_rate of ondemand governor might cause a
> race in update_sampling_rate(). It could race and happen between a STOP and
> POLICY_EXIT (triggered by hotplug, gov change, etc).
This sounds good but I couldn't prove it. Doing this on my dual core exynos
doesn't give me that crash report and it should?
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
index 1e0ec57..027b6f7 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ static int exynos_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct
cpufreq_policy *policy)
}
static struct cpufreq_driver exynos_driver = {
- .flags = CPUFREQ_STICKY | CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK,
+ .flags = CPUFREQ_STICKY |
CPUFREQ_NEED_INITIAL_FREQ_CHECK | CPUFREQ_HAVE_GOVERNOR_PER_POLICY,
.verify = cpufreq_generic_frequency_table_verify,
.target_index = exynos_target,
.get = cpufreq_generic_get,
--
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/
