[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090630063339.GF1351@ucw.cz>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:33:39 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
Cc: kernel@...ble.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, rjw@...k.pl,
hidave.darkstar@...il.com, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org, davej@...hat.com,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] CPUFREQ: Remove unneeded dbs_mutexes from ondemand
and conservative governors
On Thu 2009-06-25 16:01:24, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> Comment from Venkatesh:
> ...
> This mutex is just serializing the changes to those variables. I could't
> think of any functionality issues of not having the lock as such.
>
> -> rip it out.
>
> CC: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
> static struct dbs_tuners {
> @@ -236,10 +222,7 @@ static ssize_t store_sampling_down_factor(struct cpufreq_policy *unused,
> if (ret != 1 || input > MAX_SAMPLING_DOWN_FACTOR || input < 1)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
> dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_down_factor = input;
> - mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> -
You'd need to make s_down_factor atomic_t for this to work....
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists