[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200907031210.16828.trenn@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:10:15 +0200
From: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
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
Hi Pavel,
On Tuesday 30 June 2009 08:33:39 Pavel Machek wrote:
> 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....
Can you provide a userspace scenario (or tell which kind of event must
happen in between), that this would cause problems, please.
Thanks,
Thomas
--
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