[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180619142351.GA29374@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:23:51 +0100
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
morten.rasmussen@....com, chris.redpath@....com,
patrick.bellasi@....com, valentin.schneider@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, thara.gopinath@...aro.org,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, tkjos@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com,
smuckle@...gle.com, adharmap@...cinc.com, skannan@...cinc.com,
pkondeti@...eaurora.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
edubezval@...il.com, srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com,
currojerez@...eup.net, javi.merino@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 03/10] PM: Introduce an Energy Model management
framework
On Tuesday 19 Jun 2018 at 16:16:42 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 02:38:45PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > But maybe I could use something simpler than a lock in this case ?
> > Would WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE be enough to ensure that atomicity for
> > example ?
>
> Yes, since its a single pointer, smp_store_release() + READ_ONCE()
> should be sufficient (these are the foundations of RCU).
OK, good, I'll get rid of the spinlock in v4 (and read more about RCU
foundations then :-))
Thanks,
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists