On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 2:49 PM Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. OK, thanks! The patch has been applied as 5.11-rc material.
