From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] PM / Domains: Allocate memory outside domain locks Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:33:37 -0700 Message-ID: <7hpp53o4cu.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> References: <1433456946-53296-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> <1433456946-53296-2-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f177.google.com ([209.85.192.177]:36530 "EHLO mail-pd0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933970AbbFJRdn (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:33:43 -0400 Received: by pdjm12 with SMTP id m12so42154434pdj.3 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:33:41 -0700 (PDT) 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") Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Lina Iyer 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 Lina Iyer 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@kernel.org (Kevin Hilman) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:33:37 -0700 Subject: [PATCH RFC 1/3] PM / Domains: Allocate memory outside domain locks 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") References: <1433456946-53296-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> <1433456946-53296-2-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> Message-ID: <7hpp53o4cu.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Lina Iyer 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