From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932372AbWGYBJy (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:09:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932373AbWGYBJy (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:09:54 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:11988 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932372AbWGYBJx (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:09:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:59:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> cc: Arjan van de Ven , Ashok Raj , linux-kernel , Dave Jones , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: remove cpu hotplug bustification in cpufreq. In-Reply-To: <200607242023_MC3-1-C5FE-CADB@compuserve.com> Message-ID: References: <200607242023_MC3-1-C5FE-CADB@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > I thought just the 'ondemand' governor was a problem? The ondemand governor seems to be singled out not because it has unique problems, but because it seems to be used by Fedora Core for some strange reason. I would judge that any bugs in cpufreq_ondemand.c are likely equally evident in cpufreq_conservative.c, for example. I think the two have the same background, and seem to have the same broken locking. > That thing has been broken since day 1 AFAICT. There are lots of > reports of problems with it on the list. See above. I seriously doubt this is ondemand-specific. The whole cpufreq locking seems to be very screwed up. The current -git tree will complain about some of the more obvious problems. If you see a "Lukewarm IQ" message, it's a sign of somebody re-taking a cpu lock that is already held. Linus