[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87eej0iuf0.fsf@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 16:38:43 +0100
From: Stephen Berman <stephen.berman@....net>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
Erik Kaneda <erik.kaneda@...el.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE (ACPICA)" <devel@...ica.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: power-off delay/hang due to commit 6d25be57 (mainline)
On Thu, 31 Dec 2020 21:46:11 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> ATM, I'm tempted to do something like the patch below (with the rationale
> that it shouldn't be necessary to read the temperature right after updating
> the trip points if polling is in use, because the next update through polling
> will cause it to be read anyway and it will trigger trip point actions as
> needed).
>
> Stephen, can you give it a go, please?
On Sat, 02 Jan 2021 12:03:17 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> There is one more way to address this, probably better: instead of checking the
> temperature right away in acpi_thermal_notify(), queue that on acpi_thermal_pm_queue
> and so only if another thermal check is not pending.
>
> This way there will be at most one temperature check coming from
> acpi_thermal_notify() queued up at any time which should prevent the
> build-up of work items from taking place.
>
> So something like this:
Thanks for the patches. I'll try them as soon as I can.
Steve Berman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists