From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] arm64: topology: Avoid the have_policy check
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 11:01:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201218110114.GD5258@gaia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201218042602.4ymy4fg2zxeo6p4n@vireshk-i7>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 09:56:02AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-12-20, 10:55, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > Hi Viresh,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 01:27:32PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 15-12-20, 11:04, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > Every time I have stumbled upon this routine, I get confused with the
> > > > way 'have_policy' is used and I have to dig in to understand why is it
> > > > so. Here is an attempt to make it easier to understand, and hopefully it
> > > > is an improvement.
> > > >
> > > > The 'have_policy' check was just an optimization to avoid writing
> > > > to amu_fie_cpus in case we don't have to, but that optimization itself
> > > > is creating more confusion than the real work. Lets just do that if all
> > > > the CPUs support AMUs. It is much cleaner that way.
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > V3:
> > > > - Added Reviewed by tag.
> > >
> > > Catalin, please pick the first two patches for 5.11. I will send the
> > > last one separately later on.
> >
> > I haven't figured out whether these are fixes (a cover letter would
> > help ;)). They look like generic improvements to me
>
> Right they are and since the merge window just opened I thought these
> don't really need to wait for another full cycle to get in.
Normally we freeze the arm64 tree around the -rc6 prior to the merging
window to give the patches a bit of time in linux-next. This time
around, given the holidays, Linus even stated that if not already in
-next at 5.10, it won't be pulled: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/13/290.
So please re-post at -rc1 with the acks in place.
--
Catalin
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] arm64: topology: Avoid the have_policy check
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 11:01:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201218110114.GD5258@gaia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201218042602.4ymy4fg2zxeo6p4n@vireshk-i7>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 09:56:02AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-12-20, 10:55, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > Hi Viresh,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 01:27:32PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 15-12-20, 11:04, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > Every time I have stumbled upon this routine, I get confused with the
> > > > way 'have_policy' is used and I have to dig in to understand why is it
> > > > so. Here is an attempt to make it easier to understand, and hopefully it
> > > > is an improvement.
> > > >
> > > > The 'have_policy' check was just an optimization to avoid writing
> > > > to amu_fie_cpus in case we don't have to, but that optimization itself
> > > > is creating more confusion than the real work. Lets just do that if all
> > > > the CPUs support AMUs. It is much cleaner that way.
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > V3:
> > > > - Added Reviewed by tag.
> > >
> > > Catalin, please pick the first two patches for 5.11. I will send the
> > > last one separately later on.
> >
> > I haven't figured out whether these are fixes (a cover letter would
> > help ;)). They look like generic improvements to me
>
> Right they are and since the merge window just opened I thought these
> don't really need to wait for another full cycle to get in.
Normally we freeze the arm64 tree around the -rc6 prior to the merging
window to give the patches a bit of time in linux-next. This time
around, given the holidays, Linus even stated that if not already in
-next at 5.10, it won't be pulled: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/12/13/290.
So please re-post at -rc1 with the acks in place.
--
Catalin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-18 11:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-15 5:34 [PATCH V3 1/3] arm64: topology: Avoid the have_policy check Viresh Kumar
2020-12-15 5:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-15 5:34 ` [PATCH V3 2/3] arm64: topology: Reorder init_amu_fie() a bit Viresh Kumar
2020-12-15 5:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-15 11:53 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-12-15 11:53 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-12-15 5:34 ` [PATCH V3 3/3] arm64: topology: Make AMUs work with modular cpufreq drivers Viresh Kumar
2020-12-15 5:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-15 11:56 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-12-15 11:56 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-12-16 0:03 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-12-16 0:03 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-12-16 4:38 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-16 4:38 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-16 19:37 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-12-16 19:37 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-12-17 10:50 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-17 10:50 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-01-08 9:44 ` Ionela Voinescu
2021-01-08 9:44 ` Ionela Voinescu
2021-01-08 10:42 ` Ionela Voinescu
2021-01-08 10:42 ` Ionela Voinescu
2021-01-08 11:03 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-01-08 11:03 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-17 7:57 ` [PATCH V3 1/3] arm64: topology: Avoid the have_policy check Viresh Kumar
2020-12-17 7:57 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-17 10:55 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-12-17 10:55 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-12-18 4:26 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-18 4:26 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-18 11:01 ` Catalin Marinas [this message]
2020-12-18 11:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2020-12-18 11:04 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-12-18 11:04 ` Viresh Kumar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201218110114.GD5258@gaia \
--to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.