On Tuesday, April 02, 2013 10:34:21 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > 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.. Yeah, I'd very much prefer that. Nathan, I'm going to keep the rwlock patch unless it is demonstrably incorrect. 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
