linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: try to resume policies which failed on last resume

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: <CAKohpo=3s6=gw8OJTrUdLH8o2ouA=8a8MhrgNRXwHmOf0si5Pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:57:19 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: try to resume policies which failed on last resume

On 3 January 2014 17:25, Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no> wrote:
> Correct. And users not running a lock debugging kernel will of course
> not even see the warning.

Okay..

>> - It only happens when cpufreq_add_dev() fails during hibernation while
>> we enable non-boot CPUs again to save image to disk. So, isn't a problem
>> for a system which doesn't have any issues with add_dev() failing on
>> hibernation
>
> Wrong.  This was my initial assumption but I later found out that the
> issue is unrelated to hibernation failures.  Sorry about the confusion.

Hmm.. Can we have the latest warning logs you have? Earlier ones were
related to hibernation..

>> - There is a contention of locks in the order they are taken. And the contention
>> looks to be between, hotplug lock taken by cpu_online_cpus() and s_active
>> lock for sysfs files. Don't know what's the role of previous write to
>> sysfs files.
>> As that should finish before hibernation starts and so all locks should be back
>> in place.
>
> Yes, that seems logical.  But I guess this is where it fails?

It looked like that.. Though your new logs might indicate something else.
--
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/