On 15-02-16, 02:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@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.wyso...@intel.com> > --- > > This is a new version of https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8291021/ . > > Changes from the previous version: > - Rebase. > > --- > 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 > @@ -300,13 +300,6 @@ static void gov_cancel_work(struct cpufr > { > struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs = policy->governor_data; > > - /* 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); > @@ -369,7 +362,6 @@ 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) {
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> -- viresh
