On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 05-02-16, 04:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> And don't we switch governors under policy->rwsem anyway?
>
> So ? That is blocking only a single policy only, but with the new
> change, we will block all policies from doing that concurrently.
On 05-02-16, 04:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> And don't we switch governors under policy->rwsem anyway?
So ? That is blocking only a single policy only, but with the new
change, we will block all policies from doing that concurrently.
--
viresh
On 05-02-16, 04:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> And why is this a big problem, actually? Why do we want the switching
> of governors to be that efficient?
I am not saying its a big problem, just that its kind of a big lock,
which could have been finer.
--
viresh
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 04-02-16, 17:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Viresh Kumar
wrote:
> On 04
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 04-02-16, 17:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Viresh Kumar
>>> wrote:
>>> > On 04-02-16, 00:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> >> From: Rafael J. Wy
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 04-02-16, 17:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > On 04-02-16, 00:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>> >>
>> >> Every governor relying on the common code in cpufr
On 04-02-16, 17:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 04-02-16, 00:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
> >>
> >> Every governor relying on the common code in cpufreq_governor.c
> >> has to provide its own mutex in struct co
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 04-02-16, 00:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>>
>> Every governor relying on the common code in cpufreq_governor.c
>> has to provide its own mutex in struct common_dbs_data. However,
>> those mutexes are never used
On 04-02-16, 00:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> Every governor relying on the common code in cpufreq_governor.c
> has to provide its own mutex in struct common_dbs_data. However,
> those mutexes are never used at the same time
Why do you think so? I thought they can a
On 02/03/2016 03:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Every governor relying on the common code in cpufreq_governor.c
has to provide its own mutex in struct common_dbs_data. However,
those mutexes are never used at the same time and doing it this
way makes it rather difficul
10 matches
Mail list logo