On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Monday, February 04, 2013 04:45:11 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote: >> I am noticing the cpufreq_driver_lock is quite hot. >> On an idle 512 system perf shows me most of the system time is spent on this >> lock. This is quite signifigant as top shows 5% of time in system time. >> My solution was to first convert the lock to a rwlock and then to the rcu. >> >> >> Nathan Zimmer (2): >> cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to a rwlock >> cpufreq: Convert the cpufreq_driver_lock to use the rcu >> >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 139 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- >> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-) > > I like these changes. > > Viresh, anyone, any comments? Hi Nathan/Rafael, Even i liked the basic idea behind the patchset, but didn't like the way it is divided into patches. For me, it is highly discouraged to undo something that you added in the same patchset. And you did exactly the same thing. Patch 2 is revert of 1 + rcu stuff. So, i would expect a single patch, i.e. merge of both patches + rebased on latest stuff. -- viresh -- 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
