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. :-) Thanks, Rafael
