linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/4] Take care of cpufreq lockdep issues (take 2)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090703065427.GA32687@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 3 Jul 2009 08:54:27 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] Take care of cpufreq lockdep issues (take 2)


* venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com> wrote:

> Since recent chanegs to ondemand and conservative governor, there 
> have been multiple reports of lockdep issues in cpufreq. Patch 
> series takes care of these problems.
> 
> This is the next attempt following the one here, which was not a 
> complete fix. 
> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.3/01073.html
> 
> I am currently running some stress tests to make sure there are no 
> issues with these patches. But, wanted to send them out for 
> review/comments/testing before I head out for the long weekend.
> 
> If this patchset seems sane, the first patch in the patchset 
> should also get into 30.stable.

Btw., FYI, because my test-systems were frequently triggering those 
bugs, i kept testing the following series from you and Mathieu in 
-tip:

 ecf8b04: cpufreq: Define dbs_mutex purpose and cleanup its usage conservative gov
 b08c597: cpufreq: Define dbs_mutex purpose and cleanup its usage
 0807e30: cpufreq: remove rwsem lock from CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP call (second call site)

So that fix-series, while probably not complete (given that you sent 
a v2 series), worked well in practice and gets my:

 Tested-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>

Is the delta between this (tested) series and your v2 version 
significant? If not it might make sense to shape it as a delta patch 
to the v1 series, if that looks clean enough - to preserve testing 
results.

	Ingo

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/