Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760131Ab3DBMkd (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:40:33 -0400 Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:50067 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759842Ab3DBMkb (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Apr 2013 08:40:31 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Viresh Kumar , Nathan Zimmer Cc: cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] cpufreq: covert the cpufreq_data_lock to a spinlock Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 14:48:07 +0200 Message-ID: <8666267.Du60305uqJ@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.9.0-rc4+; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <5159C147.70800@sgi.com> <20130402005618.GA12199@gulag1.americas.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1684 Lines: 48 On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:34:21 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 2 April 2013 06:26, Nathan Zimmer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 10:41:27PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Monday, April 01, 2013 03:11:09 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote: > >> > This eliminates the rest of the contention found in __cpufreq_cpu_get. > >> > I am not seeing a way to use the rcu so we will have to make due with a > >> > rwlock for now. > >> > > >> > Cc: Viresh Kumar > >> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" > >> > Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer > >> > >> I've already applied this one. > >> > >> Can you please check if the version in my tree is OK? > >> > >> Rafael > >> > > > > Nope, the previous version was too different, probably best to just replace it. > > Nathan, > > First of all I should accept that I didn't had your last patch while > reviewing this > one earlier. Thanks Rafael. > > Now, I believe the previous patch which Rafael has pushed was good and we > can simply keep it. What you can do is, just add a patch over it (which would > mostly be 1/2 of your patchset), that simply separates rcu stuff out of the lock > and leave lock for cpufreq_data.. Yeah, I'd very much prefer that. Nathan, I'm going to keep the rwlock patch unless it is demonstrably incorrect. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/