[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1A7043D5F58CCB44A599DFD55ED4C9484688E5F2@fmsmsx115.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 15:55:15 +0000
From: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "Semin, Andrey" <andrey.semin@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] turbostat, add set_base_cpu()
> +void set_base_cpu(void)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> +
> + for (cpu = 0; cpu <= topo.max_cpu_num; ++cpu) {
> + if (cpu_is_not_present(cpu))
> + continue;
> + base_cpu = cpu;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + if (base_cpu == -1)
> + err(-ENODEV, "No valid cpus found");
> +}
cpu0 hard-coding is indeed arbitrary.
However, so is this proposed replacement, base_cpu.
Either may not match where turbostat is currently running,
and thus could provoke unnecessary cross-calls to get there.
I think it would be better to ask getcpu(2) where we are already running,
and simply use that one. I think we can call it once and cache it,
as you proposed, rather than multiple system calls.
thanks,
-Len
ps. patches to turbostat should go to linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists