From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754246AbcBDMRc (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:17:32 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]:34483 "EHLO mail-pf0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752121AbcBDMRa (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:17:30 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 17:47:27 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Juri Lelli Cc: Rafael Wysocki , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, skannan@codeaurora.org, peterz@infradead.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, steve.muckle@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/7] cpufreq: governors: Fix ABBA lockups Message-ID: <20160204121727.GH3469@vireshk> References: <20160203155428.GY3947@e106622-lin> <20160203161059.GH3469@vireshk> <20160204062439.GZ3469@vireshk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160204062439.GZ3469@vireshk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04-02-16, 11:54, Viresh Kumar wrote: > From the code I still failed to understand this since sometime back > and I something just caught my eyes and the 6th patch needs this > fixup: > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 7bc8a5ed97e5..ac3348ecde7b 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1351,7 +1351,7 @@ static void cpufreq_offline(unsigned int cpu) > pr_err("%s: Failed to start governor\n", __func__); > } > > - return; > + goto unlock; > } > > if (cpufreq_driver->stop_cpu) > @@ -1373,6 +1373,8 @@ static void cpufreq_offline(unsigned int cpu) > cpufreq_driver->exit(policy); > policy->freq_table = NULL; > } > + > +unlock: > up_write(&policy->rwsem); > } > > I tried the basic tests using './runme' and they aren't reporting the > same lockdep now. And yes, your lockdep occurred on my exynos board as > well :) > > I have re-pushed my patches again to the same branch. All 7 look fine > to me now :) FWIW, Juri has reported on IRC that the above diff fixed the lockdep he reported yesterday and all the 7 patches are working fine on his test machine, Juno. -- viresh