| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1843141.WbisoTkq1u@vostro.rjw.lan> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 15:30:39 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> 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 Tuesday, December 08, 2015 07:25:18 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 08-12-15, 15:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > We know what should be done. We need to wait for the timer function to > > complete, then cancel the work item spawned by it (if any) and then > > cancel the timers set by that work item. > > Yeah, there is no race, but it looks ugly to me. I have written it > earlier, and then the spinlock thing looked better to me. :) It doesn't look nice, but then having a lockless timer function is worth it in my view. The code in gov_cancel_work() runs relatively rarely, but the timer function can run very often, so avoiding the lock in there is a priority to me. Plus we can avoid disabling interrupts in two places this way. Thanks, Rafael -- 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