From f62b93740c30d0a3f50258d45415f00b763dd70a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" 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 Acked-by: Viresh Kumar --- 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 580b692d6df4..c78af11a51f0 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) { -- 2.20.1