Hi Viresh, On 02/02/16 16:27, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > Sorry for doing this, I know you were also looking to fix this in a > possibly different way. But I thought, it would be better if we fix > that. We can scrap this version and take yours if that looks better. > > The root cause of all the issues we were facing, was that we were taking > policy->rwsem while accessing governor sysfs attributes. And that > happened because we were sharing the show/store calls present in > cpufreq.c. > > I thought, perhaps the best way to fix it is to give separate sysfs-ops > to governors. And that's what I did. > > @Juri: I need your help in testing these. My platform doesn't give me > those lockups (even without these patches) and Juno/Tc2 would fit > better. > > Can you please run some tests on these? >
Sure! Will do in the next few days. Best, - Juri > They are pushed here for easy access (and auto test by build-bot): > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vireshk/pm.git > cpufreq/governor-kobject > > -- > viresh > > Viresh Kumar (5): > cpufreq: governor: Kill declare_show_sampling_rate_min() > cpufreq: governor: Create separate sysfs-ops > cpufreq: governor: Remove unused sysfs attribute macros > cpufreq: Don't drop rwsem before calling CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT > cpufreq: Get rid of ->governor_enabled and its lock > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 29 ---------- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 77 ++++++++++--------------- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 86 ++++++++++++++++++++-------- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h | 101 > +++++++-------------------------- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 77 ++++++++++--------------- > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 5 -- > 6 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 232 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.7.0.79.gdc08a19 >
