Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: serialize calls to __cpufreq_governor()

[Viresh Kumar]

Back finally and I see lots of mails over cpufreq stuff.. :)

On 3 September 2013 18:50, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This doesn't solve the problem completely: it prevents the store_*() task
> from continuing *only* when it concurrently executes the __cpufreq_governor()
> function along with the CPU offline task. But if the two calls don't overlap,
> we will still have the possibility where the store_*() task tries to acquire
> the timer mutex after the CPU offline task has just finished destroying it.

How exactly? My brain is still on vacations :)

Anyway, this was one of the problem that I tried to solve with my patch.
But there can be other race conditions where things can go wrong and so
that patch may still be useful.

Call to __cpufreq_governor() must be serialized I believe.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/