Re: [PATCH 09/12] PM / OPP: Move away from RCU locking

2017-01-09 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 09-01-17, 15:57, Stephen Boyd wrote: > I suppose this is one thing RCU was being used for, marking OPPs > available and then having these "getter" APIs fail if the OPPs go > away. But that was never right because the OPP could have been > made unavailable after this function returned and things

Re: [PATCH 09/12] PM / OPP: Move away from RCU locking

2017-01-09 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 12/07, Viresh Kumar wrote: > The RCU locking isn't well suited for the OPP core. The RCU locking fits > better for reader heavy stuff, while the OPP core have at max one or two > readers only at a time. > > Over that, it was getting very confusing the way RCU locking was used > with the OPP cor

[PATCH 09/12] PM / OPP: Move away from RCU locking

2016-12-07 Thread Viresh Kumar
The RCU locking isn't well suited for the OPP core. The RCU locking fits better for reader heavy stuff, while the OPP core have at max one or two readers only at a time. Over that, it was getting very confusing the way RCU locking was used with the OPP core. The individual OPPs are mostly well han