From f62b93740c30d0a3f50258d45415f00b763dd70a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 02:12:56 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: governor: Simplify gov_cancel_work() slightly
The atomic work counter incrementation in gov_cancel_work() is not
necessary any more, because work items won't be queued up after
gov_clear_update_util() anyway, so drop it along with the comment
about how it may be missed by the gov_clear_update_util().
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 8 --------
1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
index 580b692d6df4c..c78af11a51f03 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
@@ -300,13 +300,6 @@ static void gov_cancel_work(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
{
struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs = policy->governor_data;
- /* Tell dbs_update_util_handler() to skip queuing up work items. */
- atomic_inc(&policy_dbs->work_count);
- /*
- * If dbs_update_util_handler() is already running, it may not notice
- * the incremented work_count, so wait for it to complete to prevent its
- * work item from being queued up after the cancel_work_sync() below.
- */
gov_clear_update_util(policy_dbs->policy);
irq_work_sync(&policy_dbs->irq_work);
cancel_work_sync(&policy_dbs->work);
@@ -360,7 +353,6 @@ static void dbs_update_util_handler(struct update_util_data *data, u64 time,
* The work may not be allowed to be queued up right now.
* Possible reasons:
* - Work has already been queued up or is in progress.
- * - The governor is being stopped.
* - It is too early (too little time from the previous sample).
*/
if (atomic_inc_return(&policy_dbs->work_count) == 1) {
--
GitLab