On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 04-02-16, 00:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> Hi, >> >> A few days ago I looked at the common code used by the ondemand and >> conservative >> governors because of the deadlock issue that Viresh has addressed recently >> (http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=145450832814058&w=4) and it occurred to me >> that the whole thing was really too tangled and might be made easier to >> follow >> at least. I started to work on this and ended up with the following series. >> >> I'm not really going to stop here, but first, I'd like to let everybody know >> that this is happening and second, I'll need to rebase these patches on the >> ones from Viresh (in the series linked above), but that may take some time >> and I don't want to sit on them for all that long. >> >> Overall, I'd like the governor code to be cleaner and easier to follow, so >> we can >> move at least some parts of governor work to utilization update callbacks >> (invoked >> by the scheduler) or to at least to irq_work so as to reduce the usage of >> process >> context in cpufreq to absolute minimum. That's the plan for the future, but >> for >> now this is just a major cleanup. >> >> [1/11] Clean up the way in which the default and fallback governors are set >> up. >> [2/11] Use a common global mutex for dbs_data protection. >> [3/11] Use common global pointer to dbs_data for system-wide governors. > > Hi Rafael, > > I have some very basic doubts on 2nd and 3rd patch, and so have > stopped reviewing after that because there is too much dependency I > believe on these two. > > I will review the rest, if my concerns on the earlier ones are > incorrect.
Patch [3/11] is really incorrect (thanks for pointing the problem out to me), but it also isn't essential, so I can drop it just fine I think. I don't see issues with the [2/11], though, apart from the changelog being inaccurate which should be easy to fix. Thanks, Rafael
