[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160208172028.GU8294@vireshk>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 22:50:28 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
dietmar.eggemann@....com,
Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 12/13] cpufreq: ondemand: Traverse list of policy_dbs
in update_sampling_rate()
On 08-02-16, 14:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The comment still applies.
>
> Moreover, please extend it to say that this must be called with
> dbs_data->mutex held (or it looks racy otherwise).
Modified it as:
+ *
+ * Simply updating dbs_tuners_int.sampling_rate might not be appropriate here.
+ * For example, if the original sampling_rate was 1 second and the requested new
+ * sampling rate is 10 ms because the user needs immediate reaction from
+ * ondemand governor, otherwise the governor may change the sampling rate too
+ * late; up to 1 second later.
+ *
+ * Similar logic applies while increasing the sampling rate. And so we need to
+ * update it with immediate effect.
+ *
+ * This must be called with dbs_data->mutex held, otherwise traversing
+ * policy_dbs_list isn't safe.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists