lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: governor: Simplify gov_cancel_work() slightly
Date
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The atomic work counter incrementation in gov_cancel_work() is not
necessary any more, because work items won't be queued up after
gov_clear_update_util() anyway, so drop it along with the comment
about how it may be missed by the gov_clear_update_util().

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 8 --------
1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)

Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
@@ -195,13 +195,6 @@ static inline void gov_clear_update_util

static void gov_cancel_work(struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs)
{
- /* Tell dbs_update_util_handler() to skip queuing up work items. */
- atomic_inc(&policy_dbs->work_count);
- /*
- * If dbs_update_util_handler() is already running, it may not notice
- * the incremented work_count, so wait for it to complete to prevent its
- * work item from being queued up after the cancel_work_sync() below.
- */
gov_clear_update_util(policy_dbs->policy);
irq_work_sync(&policy_dbs->irq_work);
cancel_work_sync(&policy_dbs->work);
@@ -264,7 +257,6 @@ static void dbs_update_util_handler(stru
* The work may not be allowed to be queued up right now.
* Possible reasons:
* - Work has already been queued up or is in progress.
- * - The governor is being stopped.
* - It is too early (too little time from the previous sample).
*/
if (atomic_inc_return(&policy_dbs->work_count) == 1) {
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-12 15:01    [W:0.069 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site