[1/2] cpufreq: governor: Simplify gov_cancel_work() slightly

Commit Message

Rafael J. Wysocki Feb. 12, 2016, 1:28 p.m. UTC

From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[e-mail]>

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 <[e-mail]>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c |    8 --------
 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Patch

Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
@@ -195,13 +195,6 @@  static inline void gov_clear_update_util
 
 static void gov_cancel_work(struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs)
 {
-	/* 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);
@@ -264,7 +257,6 @@  static void dbs_update_util_handler(stru
 	 * 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) {