On 26 November 2013 04:59, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> @@ -1259,6 +1262,8 @@ int dpm_suspend(pm_message_t state)
>>
>> might_sleep();
>>
>> + cpufreq_suspend();
>> +
>>
>> mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx);
>> pm_transition = state;
>> async_error = 0;
>
> Shouldn't it do cpufreq_resume() on errors?
Yes and this is already done I believe. In case dpm_suspend() fails,
dpm_resume() gets called. Isn't it?
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +void cpufreq_suspend(void)
>> +{
>> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>> +
>> + if (!has_target())
>> + return;
>> +
>> + pr_debug("%s: Suspending Governors\n", __func__);
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(policy, &cpufreq_policy_list, policy_list)
>> + if (__cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP))
>> + pr_err("%s: Failed to stop governor for policy: %p\n",
>> + __func__, policy);
>
> This appears to be racy. Is it really racy, or just seemingly?
Why does it look racy to you? Userspace should be frozen by now,
policy_list should be stable as well as nobody would touch it.
--
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
