From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] cpufreq: create cpu/cpufreq/policyX directories Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:25:03 +0530 Message-ID: <20151015065503.GB19018@linux> References: <561C0A8B.5010509@codeaurora.org> <20151013033912.GN5386@linux> <561D5B85.4010103@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <561D5B85.4010103@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Saravana Kannan Cc: Rafael Wysocki , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, open list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 13-10-15, 12:29, Saravana Kannan wrote: > But we don't need to track track of "present-cpus" separately > though. We could do the for_each_cpu_and() when we create the > symlinks for the first time. And after that, we can just use the > subsystem interface callbacks (cpufreq_add_dev() and > cpufreq_remove_dev()) to keep the symlinks updated. > > I don't see any place where keeping track of this separately is more > efficient. This would save some memory savings when the number of > CPUs is large and also simplify the code because we won't have to > keep another field up to date. It is still required to track when can we free the policy. -- viresh