Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Nov 2013 07:56:19 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3 1/6] cpufreq: suspend governors on system suspend/hibernate | From | Viresh Kumar <> |
| |
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.
| |