From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754844AbbJOGzN (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:55:13 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:33378 "EHLO mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754577AbbJOGzK (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:55:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:25:03 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Saravana Kannan Cc: Rafael Wysocki , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, open list Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] cpufreq: create cpu/cpufreq/policyX directories 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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <561D5B85.4010103@codeaurora.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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