Re: [PATCH 3/3 v3] cpufreq: governor: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 08-02-16, 03:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> Moreover, update_sampling_rate() doesn't need to walk the cpu_dbs_infos,
>>> it may walk policies instead.  Like after the (untested) appended patch.
>>>
>>> Then, if we have a governor_data_lock in struct policy, we can use that
>>> to protect policy_dbs while it is being access there and we're done.
>>>
>>> I'll try to prototype something along these lines tomorrow.
>>
>> I have solved that in a different way, and dropped the lock from
>> update_sampling_rate(). Please see if that looks good.
>
> Well, almost.
>
> I like the list approach, but you need to be careful about it.  Let me
> comment more on the patches in the series.
>
> I have a gut feeling that my idea of walking policies will end up
> being simpler in the end, but let's see. :-)

Well, my gut feeling seems to have been incorrect, as often happens.

Thanks,
Rafael