[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=QKPvqUcQVsbbSQdWOOi5L-P2CBFzcfMsobs8uGpLkVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:51:47 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Xiaoguang Chen <chenxg@...vell.com>
Cc: "cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Xiaoguang Chen <chenxg.marvell@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Add governor operation ongoing flag
On 13 August 2013 12:39, Xiaoguang Chen <chenxg@...vell.com> wrote:
> __cpufreq_governor operation needs to be executed one by one.
> If one operation is ongoing, the other operation can't be executed.
> If the order is not guaranteed, there may be unexpected behavior.
What order??
> For example, governor is in enable state, and one process
> tries to stop the goveror, but it is scheduled out before policy->
> governor->governor() is executed, but the governor enable flag is
> set to false already. Then one other process tries to start governor,
> It finds enable flag is false, and it can process down to do governor
> start operation, So the governor is started twice.
That's not possible. A process will not and should not call START
before calling STOP. And so the order of calling these routines must
be forced.
Hence, we may not need your patch.
--
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