On Thursday, November 22, 2012 06:02:37 PM Fabio Baltieri wrote:
> Hello Rafael,
>
> thanks for the review! I only have one concern before sending a v4:
>
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 01:10:15AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > @@ -627,32 +659,41 @@ static void do_dbs_timer(struct work_struct *work)
> > > delay -= jiffies % delay;
> > > }
> > > } else {
> > > - __cpufreq_driver_target(dbs_info->cur_policy,
> > > - dbs_info->freq_lo, CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
> > > + if (sample)
> > > + __cpufreq_driver_target(dbs_info->cur_policy,
> > > + dbs_info->freq_lo,
> > > + CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
> > > delay = dbs_info->freq_lo_jiffies;
> > > }
> > > - schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu, &dbs_info->work, delay);
> > > + schedule_delayed_work_on(smp_processor_id(), dw, delay);
> >
> > We're not supposed to be using smp_processor_id() any more.
> > get_cpu()/put_cpu() should be used instead.
>
> That's going to add preemption protection, do I need that? The function
> is called from a kworker with the affinity set on a specific CPU, so it
> should not migrate to a different one during execution.
Yes, you're right, in that case it should be OK.
> I agree with you for all the other comments.
Cool. :-)
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
