On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/13/2013 02:55 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Friday, April 12, 2013 11:08:37 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Viresh Kumar >>>>>>> <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10 April 2013 11:44, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I found this "[RFC PATCH] kbuild: Build linux-tools package with >>>>>>>>> 'make >>>>>>>>> deb-pkg'" from February 2012. >>>>>>>>> Can't say what happened to it... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sedat, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry for being late. I am down with Fever and throat infection >>>>>>>> since few days. >>>>>>>> Still struggling with it.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are few things i tried. Firstly the tag: next-20130326 is bad >>>>>>>> as there are >>>>>>>> some bad commits in cpufreq core in it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I then tried latest linux-next/master on my Thinkpad (model name >>>>>>>> : Intel(R) >>>>>>>> Core(TM) i7-2640M CPU @ 2.80GHz) and couldn't boot it up. My ubuntu >>>>>>>> just hanged. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then i tried Rafael's linux-next branch >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 079576f Merge branch 'pm-cpufreq-next' into linux-next >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And couldn't find any issues with it. I am easily able to remove/add >>>>>>>> cpus at >>>>>>>> runtime.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you give this branch a try? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK, you seem to be well again, nice to hear. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was doing the whole week spring-cleaning in the apartment of my >>>>>>> parents. >>>>>>> Now, I have some minutes for a compilation run. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess "cpufreq: Call __cpufreq_governor() with correct policy->cpus >>>>>>> mask" could be the correct fix, but will try the GIT branch you have >>>>>>> mentioned. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Sedat - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git/commit/?h=linux-next&id=e4969ebac83fdea78d89c779331396728a4e6199 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Both BROKEN here, specific pm-next commitid and pulling >>>>>> pm.git#linux-next into next-20130411 (see attached files). >>>>>> >>>>>> Is "cpufreq: convert cpufreq_driver to using RCU" the root cause of >>>>>> this all? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [ CC Nathan ] >>>>> >>>>> NO, wrong assumption. >>>>> >>>>> 2013-04-12 18:04 Sedat Dilek o [revert-cpufreq-rcu] Revert >>>>> "cpufreq: convert cpufreq_driver to using RCU" >>>>> 2013-04-12 18:04 Sedat Dilek o Revert "cpufreq: Call >>>>> __cpufreq_governor() with correct policy->cpus mask" >>>>> 2013-04-11 23:24 Rafael J. Wysocki M─┐ [pm-next-079576f] Merge branch >>>>> 'pm-cpufreq-next' into linux-next >>>>> >>>>> - Sedat - >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> - Sedat - >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git/commit/?h=linux-next&id=5800043b2488a1c4c6e859af860644d37419d58b >>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> viresh >>>> >>>> >>>> [ TO Dirk (Author of Intel pstate driver) ] >>>> >>>> With CONFIG_X86_INTEL_PSTATE=n (unset) I do not see the call-trace! >>>> >>>> My kernel-config and dmesg are attached. >>> >>> >>> You're seeing a trouble with a new driver, then, so that's not a >>> regression. >>> > > This IS a regression. > > If the intel_pstate driver is being used __cpufreq_governor() should NOT be > called intel_pstate does not implement the target() callback. > So the "if (has_target)" line has to be put some lines above or what is your proposal? - Sedat - > Nathan's commit 5800043b2 changed the fence around the call to > __cpufreq_governor() in __cpufreq_remove_dev() here is the relevant hunk. > > @@ -1007,9 +1068,12 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, > struct subsys_interface *sif > unsigned int cpu = dev->id, ret, cpus; > unsigned long flags; > struct cpufreq_policy *data; > + struct cpufreq_driver *driver; > struct kobject *kobj; > struct completion *cmp; > struct device *cpu_dev; > + bool has_target; > + int (*exit)(struct cpufreq_policy *policy); > > pr_debug("%s: unregistering CPU %u\n", __func__, cpu); > > @@ -1025,14 +1089,19 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev(struct device *dev, > struct subsys_interface *sif > return -EINVAL; > } > > - if (cpufreq_driver->target) > + rcu_read_lock(); > + driver = rcu_dereference(cpufreq_driver); > + has_target = driver->target ? true : false; > + exit = driver->exit; > + if (has_target) > __cpufreq_governor(data, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP); > > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU > - if (!cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) > + if (!driver->setpolicy) > strncpy(per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_governor, cpu), > data->governor->name, CPUFREQ_NAME_LEN); > #endif > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > WARN_ON(lock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu)); > cpus = cpumask_weight(data->cpus); > > > > >> >> What do you mean by this? >> >> What are the next steps to get this fixed? >> >> - Sedat - >> >>> Thanks for taking the time to debug this! >>> >>> Rafael >>> >>> >>> -- >>> I speak only for myself. >>> Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
