On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 08-02-16, 03:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

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. :-)

Well, my gut feeling seems to have been incorrect, as often happens.

Thanks,
Rafael