lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:25:13 +0800 From: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com> To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com> CC: <rjw@...ysocki.net>, <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuidle: arm: make enter idle operation a bit more efficient Hi Lorenzo, On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:06:00 +0000 Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 01:07:18PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > Currently, entering idle need to check the idx every time to choose the > > real entering idle routine. But this check could be avoided by pointing > > the idle enter function pointer of each idle states to the routines > > suitable for each states directly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com> > > --- > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm.c | 14 ++++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm.c > > index 545069d..48a620f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm.c > > @@ -23,6 +23,13 @@ > > > > #include "dt_idle_states.h" > > > > +static int arm_enter_wfi_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev, > > + struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int idx) > > +{ > > + cpu_do_idle(); > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > /* > > * arm_enter_idle_state - Programs CPU to enter the specified state > > * > > @@ -38,11 +45,6 @@ static int arm_enter_idle_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev, > > { > > int ret; > > > > - if (!idx) { > > - cpu_do_idle(); > > - return idx; > > - } > > Mmm...if I wanted to paint your bikeshed I would say idx is in a > register and you are removing a simple comparison to exchange it > with a function that adds to code footprint and may even make > performance worse instead of improving anything. > > I am not sure this patch makes anything more efficient, happy to be > proven wrong, with significant data. Thanks for pointing this out. I'll do some measurement and get back to you Thanks, Jisheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists