[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151208065905.GA3294@ubuntu>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 12:29:05 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][experimantal] cpufreq: governor: Use an atomic variable
for synchronization
On 08-12-15, 01:39, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> @@ -269,9 +259,6 @@ static void dbs_timer_handler(unsigned l
> {
> struct cpu_dbs_info *cdbs = (struct cpu_dbs_info *)data;
> struct cpu_common_dbs_info *shared = cdbs->shared;
> - unsigned long flags;
> -
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&shared->timer_lock, flags);
>
> /*
> * Timer handler isn't allowed to queue work at the moment, because:
> @@ -279,12 +266,10 @@ static void dbs_timer_handler(unsigned l
> * - We are stopping the governor
> * - Or we are updating the sampling rate of ondemand governor
> */
> - if (!shared->skip_work) {
> - shared->skip_work++;
> + if (atomic_inc_return(&shared->skip_work) > 1)
> + atomic_dec(&shared->skip_work);
> + else
> queue_work(system_wq, &shared->work);
> - }
As explained in the other email, this is wrong..
--
viresh
--
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