Re: [PATCH 1/2] CPUFREQ: Remove unneeded dbs_mutexes from ondemandand conservative governors

[Pavel Machek]

On Thu 2009-06-25 16:01:24, Thomas Renninger wrote:
> Comment from Venkatesh:
> ...
> This mutex is just serializing the changes to those variables. I could't
> think of any functionality issues of not having the lock as such.
> 
> -> rip it out.
> 
> CC: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx>

>  static struct dbs_tuners {
> @@ -236,10 +222,7 @@ static ssize_t store_sampling_down_factor(struct cpufreq_policy *unused,
>  	if (ret != 1 || input > MAX_SAMPLING_DOWN_FACTOR || input < 1)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
>  	dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_down_factor = input;
> -	mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> -

You'd need to make s_down_factor atomic_t for this to work....
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/