On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 08-02-16, 03:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> Moreover, update_sampling_rate() doesn't need to walk the cpu_dbs_infos, >>> it may walk policies instead. Like after the (untested) appended patch. >>> >>> Then, if we have a governor_data_lock in struct policy, we can use that >>> to protect policy_dbs while it is being access there and we're done. >>> >>> I'll try to prototype something along these lines tomorrow. >> >> I have solved that in a different way, and dropped the lock from >> update_sampling_rate(). Please see if that looks good. > > Well, almost. > > I like the list approach, but you need to be careful about it. Let me > comment more on the patches in the series. > > I have a gut feeling that my idea of walking policies will end up > being simpler in the end, but let's see. :-)
Well, my gut feeling seems to have been incorrect, as often happens. Thanks, Rafael
