On 02-02-16, 21:06, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> I disagree. I think it's way better and simpler than this patch set. It also
> doesn't tie into cpufreq_governor.* which is a good thing IMO since it keeps
> things simpler for sched-dvfs too.
Lets discuss it further on the other thread ..
--
viresh
On 02/02/2016 09:02 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 02-02-16, 20:04, Saravana Kannan wrote:
What's the s_active lock in CPU1 coming from?
That's taken by sysfs core while removing the files.
The only reason it's there
today is because of the sysfs dir remove. If you move it before the
policy->rws
On 02-02-16, 20:04, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> What's the s_active lock in CPU1 coming from?
That's taken by sysfs core while removing the files.
> The only reason it's there
> today is because of the sysfs dir remove. If you move it before the
> policy->rwsem, you won't have it after the policy->r
On 02/02/2016 06:13 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 02-02-16, 13:37, Saravana Kannan wrote:
On 02/01/2016 10:34 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
What will that solve? It will stay exactly same then as well, as we
would be adding/removing these attributes from within the same
policy->rwsem ..
The problem is
On 02-02-16, 13:37, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 10:34 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >What will that solve? It will stay exactly same then as well, as we
> >would be adding/removing these attributes from within the same
> >policy->rwsem ..
>
> The problem isn't that you are holding the polic
On 02/01/2016 10:36 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 01-02-16, 22:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "the sysfs lock" here? The policy rwsem
or something else?
He perhaps referred to the s_active.lock that we see in traces.
Yeah, that's what I mean. I generally don't use
On 02/01/2016 10:34 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 01-02-16, 12:24, Saravana Kannan wrote:
On 02/01/2016 02:22 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I'm not sure whose idea you are referring to. Viresh's (I don't think I saw
his proposal) or mine.
http://git.linaro.org/people/viresh.kumar/linux.git/commit/
On 01-02-16, 22:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "the sysfs lock" here? The policy rwsem
> or something else?
He perhaps referred to the s_active.lock that we see in traces.
--
viresh
On 01-02-16, 12:24, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 02:22 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I'm not sure whose idea you are referring to. Viresh's (I don't think I saw
> his proposal) or mine.
http://git.linaro.org/people/viresh.kumar/linux.git/commit/57714d5b1778f2f610bcc5c74d85b29ba1cc1995
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 02:22 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Viresh Kumar
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30-01-16, 12:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, January 29, 2016 04:33:39 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
On 02/01/2016 02:22 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 30-01-16, 12:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Friday, January 29, 2016 04:33:39 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
AFAIR, the ABBA issue was between the sysfs lock and the policy lock.
Yeah, to be
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 30-01-16, 12:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Friday, January 29, 2016 04:33:39 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
>> > AFAIR, the ABBA issue was between the sysfs lock and the policy lock.
>
> Yeah, to be precise here it is:
>
> CPU0 (sysfs read)
On 30-01-16, 12:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, January 29, 2016 04:33:39 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > AFAIR, the ABBA issue was between the sysfs lock and the policy lock.
Yeah, to be precise here it is:
CPU0 (sysfs read) CPU1 (exit governor)
sysfs-read
On Friday, January 29, 2016 04:33:39 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
> On 01/12/2016 02:20 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 11-01-16, 17:35, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >> __cpufreq_governor works on policy, so policy->rwsem has to be held.
> >> Add assertion for such condition.
> >>
> >> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki"
On 01/12/2016 02:20 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 11-01-16, 17:35, Juri Lelli wrote:
__cpufreq_governor works on policy, so policy->rwsem has to be held.
Add assertion for such condition.
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki"
Cc: Viresh Kumar
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 3 +++
15 matches
Mail list logo
