From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>
To: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>
Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, ulf.hansson@linaro.org,
mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, galak@codeaurora.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
msivasub@codeaurora.org, agross@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] PM / Domains: Allocate memory outside domain locks
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:33:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7hpp53o4cu.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1433456946-53296-2-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> (Lina Iyer's message of "Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:29:04 -0600")
Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org> writes:
> In order for domains to be powered on/off in irq locked context, the
> domain locks could either be a spinlock or a mutex, depending on the
> domain.
I'd drop that sentence.
> In preparation for atomic support, allocate domain data outside
In preparation for supporting IRQ-safe domainss, ...
> the domain locks, so the allocation calls dont have to be context
> sensitive.
OK, but *why* don't these allocations need to be protected by the
locks. Presumably they were put inside the locks for a reason, so you
should make the case for why the lock protection isn't needed.
Kevin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: khilman@kernel.org (Kevin Hilman)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 1/3] PM / Domains: Allocate memory outside domain locks
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:33:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7hpp53o4cu.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1433456946-53296-2-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> (Lina Iyer's message of "Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:29:04 -0600")
Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org> writes:
> In order for domains to be powered on/off in irq locked context, the
> domain locks could either be a spinlock or a mutex, depending on the
> domain.
I'd drop that sentence.
> In preparation for atomic support, allocate domain data outside
In preparation for supporting IRQ-safe domainss, ...
> the domain locks, so the allocation calls dont have to be context
> sensitive.
OK, but *why* don't these allocations need to be protected by the
locks. Presumably they were put inside the locks for a reason, so you
should make the case for why the lock protection isn't needed.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-10 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-03 15:53 [PATCH RFC 0/3] PM / Domains: Generic PM domains for cpus Lina Iyer
2015-06-04 22:29 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-03 15:53 ` [PATCH RFC 2/3] PM / Domains: Support atomic PM domains Lina Iyer
2015-06-04 22:29 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-07 9:21 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-06-07 9:21 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-06-10 16:13 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-10 16:13 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-11 0:13 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-06-11 0:13 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-06-11 14:33 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-11 14:33 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-10 18:04 ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-10 18:04 ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-10 20:35 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-10 20:35 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-11 9:41 ` Ulf Hansson
2015-06-11 9:41 ` Ulf Hansson
2015-06-11 19:47 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-11 19:47 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-11 21:13 ` Ulf Hansson
2015-06-11 21:13 ` Ulf Hansson
2015-06-03 15:53 ` [PATCH RFC 3/3] PM / Domains: Introduce generic PM domain for cpu domain Lina Iyer
2015-06-04 22:29 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-07 9:42 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-06-07 9:42 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-06-10 16:57 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-10 16:57 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-11 0:27 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-06-11 0:27 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-06-11 14:42 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-11 14:42 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-10 17:01 ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-10 17:01 ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-11 0:35 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-06-11 0:35 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-06-10 21:37 ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-10 21:37 ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-11 14:56 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-11 14:56 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-15 18:43 ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-15 18:43 ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-15 19:14 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-15 19:14 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-16 15:50 ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-16 15:50 ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-03 15:54 ` [PATCH RFC 1/3] PM / Domains: Allocate memory outside domain locks Lina Iyer
2015-06-04 22:29 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-07 8:35 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-06-07 8:35 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2015-06-09 22:45 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-09 22:45 ` Lina Iyer
2015-06-10 17:33 ` Kevin Hilman [this message]
2015-06-10 17:33 ` Kevin Hilman
2015-06-03 15:55 ` [PATCH RFC 2/3] PM / Domains: Support atomic PM domains Lina Iyer
2015-06-03 15:55 ` [PATCH RFC 1/3] PM / Domains: Allocate memory outside domain locks Lina Iyer
2015-06-03 15:55 ` [PATCH RFC 3/3] PM / Domains: Introduce generic PM domain for cpu domain Lina Iyer
2015-06-10 17:24 ` [PATCH RFC 0/3] PM / Domains: Generic PM domains for cpus Kevin Hilman
2015-06-10 17:24 ` Kevin Hilman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7hpp53o4cu.fsf@deeprootsystems.com \
--to=khilman@kernel.org \
--cc=agross@codeaurora.org \
--cc=galak@codeaurora.org \
--cc=lina.iyer@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=msivasub@codeaurora.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.