On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 16:38:43 +0100 Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Dec 2020 21:46:11 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> ATM, I'm tempted to do something like the patch below (with the rationale >> that it shouldn't be necessary to read the temperature right after updating >> the trip points if polling is in use, because the next update through polling >> will cause it to be read anyway and it will trigger trip point actions as >> needed). >> >> Stephen, can you give it a go, please? > > On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 12:03:17 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> There is one more way to address this, probably better: instead of checking the >> temperature right away in acpi_thermal_notify(), queue that on >> acpi_thermal_pm_queue >> and so only if another thermal check is not pending. >> >> This way there will be at most one temperature check coming from >> acpi_thermal_notify() queued up at any time which should prevent the >> build-up of work items from taking place. >> >> So something like this: > > Thanks for the patches. I'll try them as soon as I can. FTR, since this is the thread I started for this bug, I've confirmed in https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87y2gi78sg.fsf@xxxxxxx/T/#t that the latest patch fixes the bug. Steve Berman
