From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/21] cpuidle: avoid unnecessary kzalloc/free of struct cpuidle_device_kobj Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:30:03 +0200 Message-ID: <5243F08B.4090907@linaro.org> References: <52435FE2.20805@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Lists linaro-kernel , Patch Tracking , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 09/26/2013 08:05 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 26 September 2013 03:42, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 09/22/2013 03:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> We always need to allocate struct cpuidle_device_kobj for all CPUs = and so there >>> is no real need to have a pointer to it inside struct cpuidle_devic= e. >>> >>> This patch makes a object instance of struct cpuidle_device_kobj in= side struct >>> cpuidle_device instead of a pointer. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar >> >> nack, it was made in purpose for kobject_init_and_add. >> >> see commit 728ce22b696f9f1404a74d7b2279a65933553a1b > > Ahh.. sorry for missing that one :( > > Now that I understand why it was introduced, I am thinking if > we can make hotplug path a bit fast? By not freeing sysfs stuff > and only hiding it for time being? And so we wouldn't be required > to do unnecessary initialisations while coming back? > > Would that be worth it? Yes if it possible. --=20 Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software fo= r ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog