From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared()
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 01:11:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1668614.4zDQWLsnmH@aspire.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1772276.4tCnP8C0XV@aspire.rjw.lan>
On Saturday, March 04, 2017 01:03:17 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, March 02, 2017 02:03:22 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > The same code is present both within and outside the loop and it doesn't
> > look like it provides any additional benefit.
>
> Well, not quite. This is on purpose.
>
> Note the "if (j == smp_processor_id())" condition within the loop and think
> about how the current CPU is taken into account. :-)
Ah OK, you did that, sorry.
So one idea is that if SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL is set in flags, we don't even
need to start the loop which is quite a cost to simply notice that there's
nothing to do.
Also I don't quite agree with adding an extra pair of integer multiplications
to that loop just to get rid of the extra args. That aside from chasing extra
pointers, of course.
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-04 0:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-02 8:33 [PATCH 0/3] cupfreq: schedutil: Minor fix and cleanups Viresh Kumar
2017-03-02 8:33 ` [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: schedutil: move cached_raw_freq to struct sugov_policy Viresh Kumar
2017-03-02 22:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-03-03 3:07 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-03-02 8:33 ` [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq: schedutil: Pass sg_policy to get_next_freq() Viresh Kumar
2017-03-02 8:33 ` [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared() Viresh Kumar
2017-03-04 0:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-03-04 0:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2017-03-06 4:45 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-03-06 12:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-03-07 10:31 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-03-07 13:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-03-08 4:18 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-03-08 10:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-03-08 11:15 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-03-08 12:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=1668614.4zDQWLsnmH@aspire.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).