From: nm@ti.com (Nishanth Menon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v5] power: introduce library for device-specific OPPs
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:03:44 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CAB92B0.2030707@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8739skpdo9.fsf@deeprootsystems.com>
Kevin Hilman had written, on 10/05/2010 03:50 PM, the following:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:
>
>> On Tuesday, October 05, 2010, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>> Rafael J. Wysocki had written, on 10/04/2010 05:36 PM, the following:
>>>> On Friday, October 01, 2010, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> I'm not really sure why so many mutexes are needed here. I don't think you
>>>> need a separate mutex in every struct device_opp object. I'd just use
>>>> dev_opp_list_lock for everything.
>>> I did consider using dev_opp_list_lock to lock everything *but* here is
>>> the contention:
>>>
>>> dev_opp_list_lock locks modification for addition of domains device.
>>> This operation happens usually during init stage.
>>>
>>> each domain device has multiple opps, new opps can be added, but the
>>> more often usage will probably be opp_enable and disable. domain are
>>> usually modifiable independent of each other - device_opp->lock provides
>>> device level lock allowing for each domain device opp list to be
>>> modified independent of each other. e.g. on thermal overage we may
>>> choose to lower mpu domain while a coprocessor driver in parallel might
>>> choose to disable co-processor domain in parallel.
>>>
>>> Wondering why you'd like a single lock for all domains and restrict
>>> parallelization?
>> Because of the simplicity, mostly. If there's only a relatively short period
>> when the lock will be contended for, that still is not too bad and it's much
>> easier to get the synchronization right with just one lock for starters.
>
> FWIW, I agree with Rafael
>
> These are not going be highly contended locks, and the lock durations
> are very short, so simplifying the locking is a big win for readability.
>
> Kevin
Fair enough. we can relook if the lock becomes a contended lock in the
future. I do agree that simplifying the locking will benefit
readability. Will post a v6 with a singular lock and updated
documentation for the same.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-05 21:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-01 11:39 [PATCH v5] power: introduce library for device-specific OPPs Nishanth Menon
2010-10-04 22:36 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-10-04 22:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-10-05 13:05 ` Nishanth Menon
2010-10-05 20:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-10-05 20:50 ` Kevin Hilman
2010-10-05 21:03 ` Nishanth Menon [this message]
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=4CAB92B0.2030707@ti.com \
--to=nm@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).