[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151208145658.GG3692@ubuntu>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:26:58 +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, 15:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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.
Okay, that's good enough then. I hope you will be sending these
patches now, right? And ofcourse, we need documentation in this case
as well.
--
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