Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid using inactive policies

2016-11-18 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 17-11-16, 16:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki >>> >>> There are two places in the cpufreq core in which low-level driver >>> callbacks may be invoked for

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid using inactive policies

2016-11-18 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 17-11-16, 16:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki >> >> There are two places in the cpufreq core in which low-level driver >> callbacks may be invoked for an inactive cpufreq policy, which isn't >> guaranteed to work in

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid using inactive policies

2016-11-17 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 17-11-16, 16:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > There are two places in the cpufreq core in which low-level driver > callbacks may be invoked for an inactive cpufreq policy, which isn't > guaranteed to work in general. Both are due to possible races with > CPU offline.

[PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid using inactive policies

2016-11-17 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
From: Rafael J. Wysocki There are two places in the cpufreq core in which low-level driver callbacks may be invoked for an inactive cpufreq policy, which isn't guaranteed to work in general. Both are due to possible races with CPU offline. First, in cpufreq_get(), the policy may become inactive