[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2182507.NaCeYsVQeB@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2016 15:33:07 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/10] cpufreq: governor: Use common mutex for dbs_data protection
On Sunday, February 07, 2016 03:01:12 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 05-02-16, 23:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > One more observation here.
> >
> > If we are able to eliminate dbs_data_mutex from update_sampling_rate(),
> > then cpufreq_governor_dbs() becomes the only user of that lock. Further,
> > if we can guarantee that the governor's ->governor callback will always
> > be invoked under policy->rwsem, dbs_data_mutex becomes unnecessary and
> > may be dropped.
>
> That will be guaranteed with my 7 patches, which I will rebase and send again.
>
> But there are cases where a single dbs_data is going to be used for multiple
> policies and so relying on policy->rwsem isn't going to be sufficient.
>
> But, yeah, we should be able to narrow down the locked area I believe.
That should only be a matter of protecting the gov->gdbs_data object and its
refcount then.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists