lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH V3 1/6] cpufreq: suspend governors on system suspend/hibernate
From
On 26 November 2013 04:59, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> 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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-26 03:41    [W:0.498 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site