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: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:46:01 +0530 Message-ID: <20160603031601.GB23467@vireshk-i7> References: <120ed8a873b6df2ccc9406eeec8f8f74e5f9b0d5.1464777376.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20160601194615.GQ9864@graphite.smuckle.net> <20160602012904.GV3725@vireshk-i7> <20160602182835.GC14579@graphite.smuckle.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f181.google.com ([209.85.192.181]:36107 "EHLO mail-pf0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750916AbcFCDQF (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2016 23:16:05 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f181.google.com with SMTP id f144so38680373pfa.3 for ; Thu, 02 Jun 2016 20:16:04 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160602182835.GC14579@graphite.smuckle.net> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@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 On 02-06-16, 11:28, Steve Muckle wrote: > Shouldn't we be able to avoid extra function calls through the use of > macros/inlines? Otherwise this is making things slower for schedutil > than it is today. > > Actually cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() shouldn't require any calls from > schedutil when a freq_table is available - the whole thing could be run > inline. I will see what I can do on that. Thanks. -- viresh