Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 5 August 2014 01:46, Saravana Kannan <skan...@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> The problem is when between one thread trying to cat a governor's file >> (say, >> sampling_rate) vs the governor getting a POLICY_EXIT. > > I don't see two threads racing against each other here. Simply changing > the governor from conservative->ondemand creates this. > > Or is it that the kernel is detecting two different orders of taking lock? > > But during governor change, isn't the sysfs lock taken first as we are > storing a value to "scaling_governor"? So, isn't this a sysfs lock first > in all cases? > > In short, I am still unclear about the *exact* problem here. > >> Could you please look at my policy free/remove patches? If you can do >> that, >> I can work on a fix for this. It might also be simpler to fix after my >> patch >> series (not sure, might be). > > I had an overall look of those on the day you posted them, but haven't > commented yet as was going away.. > > There is no way those can land in 3.17-rc1 atleast and so we still have > some time to get them pushed.. > > Anyway, they are my number two priority and the number one is this bug, > which we have to fix in stable kernels as well. So, a dependency on your > series wouldn't work..
Sigh... ok. I too will try to fix this one. I already have something in mind for this. Looks like Srivatsa has gone off the grid too. I'm hoping at least one of you can do a review of my series. Come on guys, not everyone has to work on the same patch/issue. :-( -Saravana -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- 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/
