On 22-07-15, 01:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > So the problem is that the cpu_is_offline(cpu) check in > cpufreq_add_dev() matches two distinct cases: (1) the CPU was not > present before and it is just being hot-added and (2) the CPU is > initially offline, but present, and this is the first time its device > is registered. In the first case we can expect that the CPU will > become online shortly (although that is not guaranteed too), but in > the second case that very well may not happen.
Yeah. > We need to be able to distinguish between those two cases and your > patch does that, but I'm not sure if this really is the most > straightforward way to do it. Maybe yeah. I will take another look into that after considering Russell's input. > I'm also unsure why you're changing the removal code paths. Is there > any particular failure scenario you're concerned about? The same issue is present here too. The problem was that cpu_offline() check was getting hit for a CPU that is present in related_cpus mask. While allocating/freeing the policy, we create links for all related_cpus and the cpu_offline() check was adding/removing the link again. -- viresh -- 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/
