Re: [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq_ondemand.c: don't use _WORK_NAR

Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote:

> Looks like dbs_timer() is very careful wrt per_cpu(cpu_dbs_info),
> and it doesn't need the help of WORK_STRUCT_NOAUTOREL.

Actually, I think my problem with this was dbs_info->sample_type, but reading
it again, I'm not sure that it's actually a problem as the work function will
probably not ever be executing on two or more CPUs simultaneously because of
the deferral time involved.

So, your patch is probably fair enough.  Certainly, deletion isn't a problem.

Acked-By: David Howells <[email protected]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq_ondemand.c: don't use _WORK_NAR
    • From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.20-mm2
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/3] drivers/media/video/cpia_pp.c: don't use _WORK_NAR
• Previous by thread: [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq_ondemand.c: don't use _WORK_NAR
• Next by thread: [PATCH 3/3] drivers/media/video/cpia_pp.c: don't use _WORK_NAR
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]