[PATCH] cpuidle: mvebu: Fix the CPU PM notifier usage

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 03/03/2015 11:52 AM, Fulvio wrote:
> Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/03/2015 11:30, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 02/27/2015 10:39 AM, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>>
>>>> On 26/02/2015 22:55, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 06:20:48 PM Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>>>>>> As stated in kernel/cpu_pm.c, "Platform is responsible for ensuring
>>>>>> that cpu_pm_enter is not called twice on the same CPU before
>>>>>> cpu_pm_exit is called.". In the current code in case of failure when
>>>>>> calling mvebu_v7_cpu_suspend, the function cpu_pm_exit() is never
>>>>>> called whereas cpu_pm_enter() was called just before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch moves the cpu_pm_exit() in order to balance the
>>>>>> cpu_pm_enter() calls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reported-by: Fulvio Benini <fbf at libero.it>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement at free-electrons.com>
>>>>> Should that go to "stable" too?  Which "stable" series it should go
>>>>> to if so?
>>>> Yes as it fixes a potential issue, you're right it should go
>>>> to "stable". The bug was here since the introduction of the driver
>>>> in 3.16.
>>> Hi Gregory,
>>>
>>> actually the 'stable' rules state clearly:
>>>
>>> "- It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be
>>> a problem..." type thing)."
>>>
>>> You say "it fixes a potential issue", so no bug has been raise yet,
>>> right ?
>>
>> Indeed nobody claimed yet having a bug related to this issue.
>>
>> Gregory
>>
> I reported the issue, but i cannot say if it's a real bug.
> I had random kernel panics with a Netgear ReadyNAS RN102 (armada 370 cpu):
> http://www.readynas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=78697&sid=14747617286d55ac27296cdee7a3f420&start=210#p452214
>
>
> All i can say is that the system use the "armadaxp_idle" driver and
> works fine when running "stress --cpu 8" in background.

Hi Fulvio,

so IIUC, you suggest the stress test prevent the system to use cpuidle 
because of the busy cycles, right ?

Is it possible to have the kernel panic stack ?

Are you able to reproduce the kernel panic ? and test a new kernel ?

Thanks

   -- Daniel

> I asked Netgear to provide a firmware without the idle driver to confirm
> if it's the cause of the problem, but they did not answered.
> Bye,
> Fulvio


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog