Commit f62b9374 authored by Rafael J. Wysocki's avatar Rafael J. Wysocki

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: default avatarRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: default avatarViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
parent b9db4273
......@@ -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) {
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment