[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jts=uE63vQ9ApP1GMPVzF6Ap4r5b6BP1q3urx5YzBPUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 10:20:38 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: flush any pending policy update work scheduled
before freeing
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 4:15 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 18-10-19, 12:06, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > Callstack is:
> >
> > (cpufreq_notifier_max)
> > (notifier_call_chain)
> > (blocking_notifier_call_chain)
> > (pm_qos_update_target)
> > (freq_qos_apply)
> > (freq_qos_remove_request)
> > (cpufreq_policy_free)
> > (subsys_interface_unregister)
> > (cpufreq_unregister_driver)
>
> @sudeep: I see that the patch is merged now, but as I said earlier the
> reasoning isn't clear yet. Please don't stop working on this and lets
> clean this once and for all.
>
> What patches were you testing this with? My buggy patches or Rafael's
> patches as well ? At least with my patches, this can happen due to the
> other bug where the notifier doesn't get removed (as I said earlier),
> but once that bug isn't there then this shouldn't happen, else we have
> another bug in pipeline somewhere and should find it.
Right.
I have found one already which should be fixed in my current
linux-next branch, so testing that in particular would be appreciated.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists