From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] cpufreq: Optimize cpufreq_frequency_table_target() Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 06:59:04 +0530 Message-ID: <20160602012904.GV3725@vireshk-i7> References: <120ed8a873b6df2ccc9406eeec8f8f74e5f9b0d5.1464777376.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20160601194615.GQ9864@graphite.smuckle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160601194615.GQ9864@graphite.smuckle.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Steve Muckle Cc: Rafael Wysocki , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 01-06-16, 12:46, Steve Muckle wrote: > > /* > > * Find the closest frequency above target_freq. > > - * > > - * The table is sorted in the reverse order with respect to the > > - * frequency and all of the entries are valid (see the initialization). > > */ > > - entry = policy->freq_table; > > - do { > > - entry++; > > - freq = entry->frequency; > > - } while (freq >= target_freq && freq != CPUFREQ_TABLE_END); > > - entry--; > > + index = cpufreq_frequency_table_target(policy, target_freq, > > + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L); > > This adds a function call to the fast path... I understand that, but I am not sure how far should we go to avoid that. Open coding routines to save on that isn't a good idea surely. I have at least kept this routine in cpufreq.h to avoid a call, but eventually we will have at least a call somewhere within it. :( -- viresh