Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: Use sorted frequency tables

[Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 04:16:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 31-05-16, 18:08, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > Checking the table type
> 
> I hope you are talking about my patch here and in that case its not
> table-type, but relation-type.

I was referring to Rafael's comment about having the core check how the
table was sorted and process it accordingly. It doesn't apply to the
approach in your patches.

> 
> > and performing the associated lookup seems
> > workable to me though it adds a bit of complexity.
> > 
> > Also what about leaving it as is?
> 
> So, your series kind of just triggered this thing, but freq matching
> should always be really fast. And I feel that we should attempt to
> making it fast.

I agree with that goal.

> 
> > I didn't fully catch the concern with
> > abuse in the series I posted, and it pushes this complexity of dealing
> > with the freq table efficiently down into the driver, which is best
> > suited for that IMO.
> 
> Not really. Its a single driver today, it will be 20 drivers tomorrow.
> We really want to do such common stuff in core whenever it is
> possible.
> 
> > Another thought is that it'd be nice to eventually reduce
> > cpufreq_driver_{fast_switch,resolve_freq} into simple inline functions
> > so that we could jump to the driver directly from schedutil, eliminating
> > a function call.
> 
> That's kind of orthogonal to this :)

Handling freq table walking exclusively in cpufreq core will add to the
size of stuff to be inlined in schedutil to avoid extra function calls.	

thanks,
Steve