On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 07:25:40PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote:
With the new standardized sysfs interfaces we need to be a bit more
careful about setting the RPS values.
Because the sysfs code and the rps workqueue
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 19:43:42 -0700, Ben Widawsky b...@bwidawsk.net wrote:
With the new standardized sysfs interfaces we need to be a bit more
careful about setting the RPS values.
Because the sysfs code and the rps workqueue can run at the same time,
if the sysfs setter wins the race to the
With the new standardized sysfs interfaces we need to be a bit more
careful about setting the RPS values.
Because the sysfs code and the rps workqueue can run at the same time,
if the sysfs setter wins the race to the mutex, the workqueue can come
in and set a value which is out of range (ie.
