On 04/29/2013 04:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2013 02:37:28 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:22:32AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, April 04, 2013 09:57:19 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 4 April 2013 20:23, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
We
On Monday, April 29, 2013 02:37:28 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:22:32AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 04, 2013 09:57:19 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 4 April 2013 20:23, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> > > > We eventually would like to remove the
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:22:32AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, April 04, 2013 09:57:19 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 4 April 2013 20:23, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> > > We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or
> > > convert
> > > it back to a spinlock
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:22:32AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, April 04, 2013 09:57:19 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 4 April 2013 20:23, Nathan Zimmer nzim...@sgi.com wrote:
We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or
convert
it back to a spinlock
On Monday, April 29, 2013 02:37:28 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:22:32AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, April 04, 2013 09:57:19 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 4 April 2013 20:23, Nathan Zimmer nzim...@sgi.com wrote:
We eventually would like to remove the
On 04/29/2013 04:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2013 02:37:28 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:22:32AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, April 04, 2013 09:57:19 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 4 April 2013 20:23, Nathan Zimmer nzim...@sgi.com
On Thursday, April 04, 2013 09:57:19 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 4 April 2013 20:23, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> > We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or convert
> > it back to a spinlock and protect the read sections with RCU. The first
> > step in
> > that is moving
On Thursday, April 04, 2013 09:57:19 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 4 April 2013 20:23, Nathan Zimmer nzim...@sgi.com wrote:
We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or convert
it back to a spinlock and protect the read sections with RCU. The first
step in
that is
On 4 April 2013 20:23, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or convert
> it back to a spinlock and protect the read sections with RCU. The first step
> in
> that is moving the cpufreq_driver to use the rcu.
> I don't see an easy wasy to
We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or convert
it back to a spinlock and protect the read sections with RCU. The first step in
that is moving the cpufreq_driver to use the rcu.
I don't see an easy wasy to protect the cpufreq_cpu_data structure with the
RCU, so I am
We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or convert
it back to a spinlock and protect the read sections with RCU. The first step in
that is moving the cpufreq_driver to use the rcu.
I don't see an easy wasy to protect the cpufreq_cpu_data structure with the
RCU, so I am
On 4 April 2013 20:23, Nathan Zimmer nzim...@sgi.com wrote:
We eventually would like to remove the rwlock cpufreq_driver_lock or convert
it back to a spinlock and protect the read sections with RCU. The first step
in
that is moving the cpufreq_driver to use the rcu.
I don't see an easy wasy
12 matches
Mail list logo
