On 2 April 2013 06:26, Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 10:41:27PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Monday, April 01, 2013 03:11:09 PM Nathan Zimmer wrote: >> > This eliminates the rest of the contention found in __cpufreq_cpu_get. >> > I am not seeing a way to use the rcu so we will have to make due with a >> > rwlock for now. >> > >> > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> >> > Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@xxxxxxx> >> >> I've already applied this one. >> >> Can you please check if the version in my tree is OK? >> >> Rafael >> > > Nope, the previous version was too different, probably best to just replace it. Nathan, First of all I should accept that I didn't had your last patch while reviewing this one earlier. Thanks Rafael. Now, I believe the previous patch which Rafael has pushed was good and we can simply keep it. What you can do is, just add a patch over it (which would mostly be 1/2 of your patchset), that simply separates rcu stuff out of the lock and leave lock for cpufreq_data.. -- 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
