On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 08-02-16, 14:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> The comment still applies. >>> >>> Moreover, please extend it to say that this must be called with >>> dbs_data->mutex held (or it looks racy otherwise). >> >> Modified it as: >> >> + * >> + * Simply updating dbs_tuners_int.sampling_rate might not be appropriate >> here. >> + * For example, if the original sampling_rate was 1 second and the >> requested new >> + * sampling rate is 10 ms because the user needs immediate reaction from >> + * ondemand governor, otherwise the governor may change the sampling rate >> too >> + * late; up to 1 second later. > > The "otherwise" doesn't seem to be necessary here. > >> + * >> + * Similar logic applies while increasing the sampling rate. And so we need >> to >> + * update it with immediate effect. > > Actually, no, it doesn't apply. If you increase the sampling rate, > the governor will never be late. It may be early, but that's fine in > this case. > > It just doesn't hurt to update immediately in this case too. > >> + * >> + * This must be called with dbs_data->mutex held, otherwise traversing >> + * policy_dbs_list isn't safe.
I really don't know what's wrong with retaining the original paragraph and adding the above sentence after it. Thanks, Rafael
