On ke, 2016-02-17 at 17:37 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:33:51PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:13:21PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > And for context we're hitting this on CI in a bunch of our machines, which > > > > > > What's CI ? > > > > Continuous integration, aka our own farm of machines dedicated to running > > i915.ko testcases. Kinda like 0day (it does pre-merge testing on the m-l > > and also post-merge on our own little integration tree), but for just the > > graphics team and our needs. > > So what patch triggered this new issue? Did cpufreq change or what? It appeared right after enabling lockdep debugging on the continuous integration system. So we do not have a history of it not being there. Taking an another look at my code, it could indeed end up in double- wait-looping scenario if suspend and initialization was performed simultaneously (it had a couple of other bugs too, fixed in v2). Strange thing is, I think that should have been caught by cpuhp_lock_* lockdep tracking. So I'll move the discussion to linux-pm list to change the CPUfreq code. Thanks for the comments. Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
