[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121122170237.GA16948@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 18:02:37 +0100
From: Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Rickard Andersson <rickard.andersson@...ricsson.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: ondemand: handle SW coordinated CPUs
Hello Rafael,
thanks for the review! I only have one concern before sending a v4:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 01:10:15AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > @@ -627,32 +659,41 @@ static void do_dbs_timer(struct work_struct *work)
> > delay -= jiffies % delay;
> > }
> > } else {
> > - __cpufreq_driver_target(dbs_info->cur_policy,
> > - dbs_info->freq_lo, CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
> > + if (sample)
> > + __cpufreq_driver_target(dbs_info->cur_policy,
> > + dbs_info->freq_lo,
> > + CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
> > delay = dbs_info->freq_lo_jiffies;
> > }
> > - schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu, &dbs_info->work, delay);
> > + schedule_delayed_work_on(smp_processor_id(), dw, delay);
>
> We're not supposed to be using smp_processor_id() any more.
> get_cpu()/put_cpu() should be used instead.
That's going to add preemption protection, do I need that? The function
is called from a kworker with the affinity set on a specific CPU, so it
should not migrate to a different one during execution.
I agree with you for all the other comments.
Thanks,
Fabio
--
Fabio Baltieri
--
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