lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 5/5] cpufreq: Catch double invocations of cpufreq_freq_transition_begin/end
From
On 29 April 2014 13:05, Srivatsa S. Bhat
<srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 04/29/2014 12:19 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> + WARN_ON(!(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION)
>> && (current == policy->transition_task));
>>
>> which you already mentioned.
>
> Yeah, I think we should just go with this. I thought we needed lots of
> if-conditions to do exclude these drivers (which would have made it ugly),
> but as you pointed above, just this one would suffice.

Okay, I think we can do one more modification here:

>> + WARN_ON(unlikely(!(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_ASYNC_NOTIFICATION)
>> && (current == policy->transition_task)));


> Besides, the cpufreq core doesn't automatically invoke _begin() and
> _end() for ASYNC_NOTIFICATION drivers. So that means the probability
> that such drivers will hit this problem is extremely low, since the
> driver alone is responsible for invoking _begin/_end and hence there
> shouldn't be much of a conflict. So I think we should really just
> skip ASYNC_NOTIFICATION drivers in this debug infrastructure.

The only way it can happen (I don't hope somebody would be so
stupid to call begin twice from target() :)), is via transition notifiers,
which in some case starting a new transition..


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-29 10:41    [W:0.090 / U:1.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site