From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] cpufreq: Do not hold driver module references for additional policy CPUs Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 00:31:23 +0530 Message-ID: <51FAB083.5050900@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <2362640.pUofnXyzOi@vostro.rjw.lan> <1864010.r8gSosnm8c@vostro.rjw.lan> <51FAA3B9.7040009@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1656801.jLHjvytfNU@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1656801.jLHjvytfNU@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Viresh Kumar , Linux PM list , LKML , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, Lists linaro-kernel List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 08/02/2013 12:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, August 01, 2013 11:36:49 PM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >> Its the cpufreq_cpu_get() hidden away in cpufreq_add_dev_symlink(). With >> that taken care of, everything should be OK. Then we can change the >> synchronization part to avoid using refcounts. > > So I actually don't see why cpufreq_add_dev_symlink() needs to call > cpufreq_cpu_get() at all, since the policy refcount is already 1 at the > point it is called and the bumping up of the driver module refcount is > pointless. > Hmm, yes, it seems so. > However, if I change that I also need to change the piece of code that > calls the complementary cpufreq_cpu_put() and I kind of cannot find it. > ... I guess that's because you are looking at the code with your patch applied (and your patch removed that _put()) ;-) Its this part in __cpufreq_remove_dev(): 1303 } else { 1304 1305 if (!frozen) { 1306 pr_debug("%s: removing link, cpu: %d\n", __func__, cpu); 1307 cpufreq_cpu_put(data); 1308 } 1309 Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat