On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 07:25:40PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0700, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote: > > With the new "standardized" sysfs interfaces we need to be a bit more > > careful about setting the RPS values. > > > > Because the sysfs code and the rps workqueue can run at the same time, > > if the sysfs setter wins the race to the mutex, the workqueue can come > > in and set a value which is out of range (ie. we're no longer protecting > > by RPINTLIM). > > > > I was not able to actually make this error occur in testing. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> > > Good catch, care to squeeze the comment into a single line ;-) > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> Applied all patches to dinq up to this one here, thanks. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
