Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Dec 2015 20:26:58 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][experimantal] cpufreq: governor: Use an atomic variable for synchronization |
| |
On 08-12-15, 15:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > It doesn't look nice, but then having a lockless timer function is worth > it in my view. > > The code in gov_cancel_work() runs relatively rarely, but the timer > function can run very often, so avoiding the lock in there is a priority > to me. > > Plus we can avoid disabling interrupts in two places this way.
Okay, that's good enough then. I hope you will be sending these patches now, right? And ofcourse, we need documentation in this case as well.
-- viresh
| |