Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] cpufreq: covert the cpufreq_data_lock to a spinlock

[Viresh Kumar]

On 2 April 2013 06:26, Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@xxxxxxx> 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 <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> 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..

--
viresh
--
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/