Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 08:52 -0700, mark gross wrote:

> Keeping a lock around the different "target_value"s may not be so
> important.  Its just a 32bit scaler value, and perhaps we can make it an
> atomic type?  That way we loose the raw_spinlock.

My suggestion was to keep the locking for the write side - so as to
avoid stuff stomping on one another, but drop the read side as:

 spin_lock
 foo = var;
 spin_unlock
 return foo;

is kinda useless, it doesn't actually serialize against the usage of
foo, that is, once it gets used, var might already have acquired a new
value.

The only thing it would protect is reading var, but since that is a
machine sized read, its atomic anyway (assuming its naturally aligned).

So no need for atomic_t (its read-side is just a read too), just drop
the whole lock usage from pq_qos_requirement().



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/