Re: [PATCH 1/9] cpufreq: governor: Simplify gov_cancel_work() slightly
From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Mon Feb 15 2016 - 00:41:08 EST
On 15-02-16, 02:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> The atomic work counter incrementation in gov_cancel_work() is not
> necessary any more, because work items won't be queued up after
> gov_clear_update_util() anyway, so drop it along with the comment
> about how it may be missed by the gov_clear_update_util().
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> This is a new version of https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8291021/ .
>
> Changes from the previous version:
> - Rebase.
>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 8 --------
> 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> @@ -300,13 +300,6 @@ static void gov_cancel_work(struct cpufr
> {
> struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs = policy->governor_data;
>
> - /* Tell dbs_update_util_handler() to skip queuing up work items. */
> - atomic_inc(&policy_dbs->work_count);
> - /*
> - * If dbs_update_util_handler() is already running, it may not notice
> - * the incremented work_count, so wait for it to complete to prevent its
> - * work item from being queued up after the cancel_work_sync() below.
> - */
> gov_clear_update_util(policy_dbs->policy);
> irq_work_sync(&policy_dbs->irq_work);
> cancel_work_sync(&policy_dbs->work);
> @@ -369,7 +362,6 @@ static void dbs_update_util_handler(stru
> * The work may not be allowed to be queued up right now.
> * Possible reasons:
> * - Work has already been queued up or is in progress.
> - * - The governor is being stopped.
> * - It is too early (too little time from the previous sample).
> */
> if (atomic_inc_return(&policy_dbs->work_count) == 1) {
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
viresh