[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6035571.lOV4Wx5bFT@kreacher>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:29:43 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Subject:
[PATCH v1 1/5] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Drop redundant locking from
intel_pstate_driver_cleanup()
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Remove the spinlock locking from intel_pstate_driver_cleanup() as it is
not necessary because no other code accessing all_cpu_data[] can run in
parallel with that function.
Had the locking been necessary, though, it would have been incorrect
because the lock in question is acquired from a hardirq handler and
it cannot be acquired from thread context without disabling interrupts.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
---
drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
@@ -3135,10 +3135,8 @@ static void intel_pstate_driver_cleanup(
if (intel_pstate_driver == &intel_pstate)
intel_pstate_clear_update_util_hook(cpu);
- spin_lock(&hwp_notify_lock);
kfree(all_cpu_data[cpu]);
WRITE_ONCE(all_cpu_data[cpu], NULL);
- spin_unlock(&hwp_notify_lock);
}
}
cpus_read_unlock();
Powered by blists - more mailing lists