Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932481Ab3DBO6R (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Apr 2013 10:58:17 -0400 Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.179.30]:49628 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760270Ab3DBO6P (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Apr 2013 10:58:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:58:14 -0500 From: Nathan Zimmer To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Viresh Kumar , Nathan Zimmer , 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 Message-ID: <20130402145813.GB31757@gulag1.americas.sgi.com> References: <5159C147.70800@sgi.com> <20130402005618.GA12199@gulag1.americas.sgi.com> <8666267.Du60305uqJ@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8666267.Du60305uqJ@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1862 Lines: 52 On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 02:48:07PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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. Ok I'll go that route. -- 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/