From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DEEAC54E4B for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 06:50:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6176620882 for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 06:50:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1589266229; bh=lTIhgkgLP0hHM7ScFLiBRwL3GQ7PRb7fhu4G5yrO89I=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=2TVpjZfyNtQFkeC/o/4BDLd8iiL+8Ua2ePjLCNHQxxcdDgqChLGiCkWdPRWJGgWRk FVZURjVCIJwnRaWTXOPzRHLbYrET+KbI78feGizJTzAKhTl6kEAuYgTcBLQPbybNI0 pKJXNWQVp5UgYRAOqPTv6mH3OVK8pL+3ZDKBYOIk= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728940AbgELGu3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2020 02:50:29 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f68.google.com ([209.85.208.68]:44658 "EHLO mail-ed1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728525AbgELGu2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 May 2020 02:50:28 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f68.google.com with SMTP id r7so10169983edo.11; Mon, 11 May 2020 23:50:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=NGCmQRwn70jwSoE1rVBW7nYUdi0rleIM1+a6lKcmx6Y=; b=BEdokAKhE09o17Ib6jqnZ1D20IGifvKr+19ie8b0UruQCQc+xIjqzQkyM4kcCT13eN oI/jSf/zeHdoNJbci7Y300tG66KgzruR9ERSkOfY7d8G1an9HG6Fb2TFXZaq6Yz1lGSD ZuwATDcs9xy8bi5JsK53SV7j6R6d8xACLzkl2GKUQ/7MnzO1030y4fjgl4jMs+Z7w32B 950h30X+VDrrpy+ErAhaA8Pg/n0mXLx9NychTPhxgwYZuEhSEqArw/eLxEP/HXAencrv Hnc/0SJJ9unHS379ORlI2jvIdfPcYpkM0KF5D2pDc22K0+HJMxK2+cql4JcO9niF26o5 UAhw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuakzhgipJfP4AQ/0P62+mL+1AFF6hSqR2n3nnnR2xMkSFDp45p4 1ko83twTYsJMhPWv3/zgRns= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJRBoTPk3w4SSl5+ddox+FzeAD0bP+sdgUJjGYIvF+5BKJVf2SdadvJzdj8oe1Rhj3tuk/VMw== X-Received: by 2002:a50:eb0a:: with SMTP id y10mr16683538edp.312.1589266226225; Mon, 11 May 2020 23:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kozik-lap ([194.230.155.237]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m5sm1601440edq.71.2020.05.11.23.50.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 11 May 2020 23:50:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 08:50:23 +0200 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: Bernard Zhao , Lukasz Luba Cc: Kukjin Kim , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, opensource.kernel@vivo.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area Message-ID: <20200512065023.GA10741@kozik-lap> References: <20200508131338.32956-1-bernard@vivo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200508131338.32956-1-bernard@vivo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:13:38AM -0700, Bernard Zhao wrote: > Maybe dmc->df->lock is unnecessary to protect function > exynos5_dmc_perf_events_check(dmc). If we have to protect, > dmc->lock is more better and more effective. > Also, it seems not needed to protect "if (ret) & dev_warn" > branch. > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao > --- > drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c | 6 ++---- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) I checked the concurrent accesses and it looks correct. Lukasz, any review from your side? Best regards, Krzysztof From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA97EC54E4B for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 06:50:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8050E20752 for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 06:50:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="GPDou91S" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8050E20752 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=yIHa/BMq+y4X069pjGqwr9h7epQ/EkDBp63csnGJf+4=; b=GPDou91SA+7adv siG3lp9WxgVnR322x4RMHE3BKiYF/Z5bmI9me1Z7o7aU6RmiRqE9Id8pkbdGJXNxrBHYRuLa4UL67 wAeMjGf+DDh6YrLTSkQrCCOupu1XK7/W6oUeAoyEMJSCzqO+1A1eQpCabmgmUjeP86EHJI7DhH1MG zvOdUitClOPdZjKS9Mgo+2ixu8r3uq+YCkbXEpawZ4ipZQP7aTAFR6C5rGmAgEtRug8ZIs5/QHaJk dsIHCORQDX+VD5TYTzt9vn0d1xDUs9DgkGSdLJChuBqHJJiSfqxiimznRZUA+iyde4pF5XPNVc3Pe H5nl9dVEi10Q4O85uL5g==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jYOkJ-0000B6-Fb; Tue, 12 May 2020 06:50:31 +0000 Received: from mail-ed1-f66.google.com ([209.85.208.66]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jYOkF-00008t-Ne for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 06:50:29 +0000 Received: by mail-ed1-f66.google.com with SMTP id g9so5657387edw.10 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 23:50:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=NGCmQRwn70jwSoE1rVBW7nYUdi0rleIM1+a6lKcmx6Y=; b=NsCDgK9TXhnY/K01ixJQyiIITVwDSFIjhC6Q6YXiHYvwM4KNvWDbuK2Q+vMIMcZftZ LqoXs28USVNpg7JmtfWSLuLqllzgvbX7gnt2t6C8gRE1omHjl3oCs9E/SKmUrzAEKO+r NTetLvLaab9ijFzjY/4K3M5YNfWeCL9E6Y421FWMb1ifKFn79uz3rAT1QgZEFJhb9hcZ AUiAF7xzPbD9yLzy5TeVX88m6AVPFzIcX+KMUjujoXDYrxJAEqyXy8a0QWc4c5V3Nq5Q x7Ttc1oxNQu18nuHCXCZAaTgAEyPuFABFe/VYizGn4fF5eEptCdzQok3eK3CTRjw8H4E tC+w== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYrRjJchQDz4jgeuHL4M1y5MUJlSZ83wcAv3wl1NRaqj7hI/w19 fmxvrFOP6dxkaxgSZVIe2WM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJRBoTPk3w4SSl5+ddox+FzeAD0bP+sdgUJjGYIvF+5BKJVf2SdadvJzdj8oe1Rhj3tuk/VMw== X-Received: by 2002:a50:eb0a:: with SMTP id y10mr16683538edp.312.1589266226225; Mon, 11 May 2020 23:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kozik-lap ([194.230.155.237]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m5sm1601440edq.71.2020.05.11.23.50.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 11 May 2020 23:50:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 08:50:23 +0200 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: Bernard Zhao , Lukasz Luba Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory/samsung: reduce unnecessary mutex lock area Message-ID: <20200512065023.GA10741@kozik-lap> References: <20200508131338.32956-1-bernard@vivo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200508131338.32956-1-bernard@vivo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200511_235027_764032_09198990 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 12.21 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: opensource.kernel@vivo.com, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kukjin Kim , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 06:13:38AM -0700, Bernard Zhao wrote: > Maybe dmc->df->lock is unnecessary to protect function > exynos5_dmc_perf_events_check(dmc). If we have to protect, > dmc->lock is more better and more effective. > Also, it seems not needed to protect "if (ret) & dev_warn" > branch. > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Zhao > --- > drivers/memory/samsung/exynos5422-dmc.c | 6 ++---- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) I checked the concurrent accesses and it looks correct. Lukasz, any review from your side? Best regards, Krzysztof _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel