Re: [PATCH RFC] pm_qos_requirement might sleep

Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-14T17:49:09Z

On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 08:52 -0700, mark gross wrote:

> Keeping a lock around the different "target_value"s may not be so
> important. Its just a 32bit scaler value, and perhaps we can make it an
> atomic type? That way we loose the raw_spinlock.

My suggestion was to keep the locking for the write side - so as to
avoid stuff stomping on one another, but drop the read side as:

spin_lock
foo = var;
spin_unlock
return foo;

is kinda useless, it doesn't actually serialize against the usage of
foo, that is, once it gets used, var might already have acquired a new
value.

The only thing it would protect is reading var, but since that is a
machine sized read, its atomic anyway (assuming its naturally aligned).

So no need for atomic_t (its read-side is just a read too), just drop
the whole lock usage from pq_qos_requirement().