linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] cpufreq: create cpu/cpufreq/policyX directories

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <561D5B85.4010103@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:29:09 -0700
From:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC:	Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] cpufreq: create cpu/cpufreq/policyX directories

On 10/12/2015 08:39 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12-10-15, 12:31, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>> Can we use the first CPU in the related CPUs mask? Instead of the
>> first CPU that the policy got created on? The policyX numbering
>> would be a bit more consistent that way.
>
> Okay..
>
>> Suggested-by: ?
>
> Will add. Though me/Rafael thought about it long back, but then
> dropped the idea :)
>
>> Didn't notice when this got added. Do we really need this anymore if
>> we don't care about moving the directory and creating symlinks? I
>> don't think we need it anymore. And if we really need to know
>> related - offline, we can use for_each_cpu_and(related,
>> online/present mask)
>
> Its about tracking present-cpus, for which the link is present. So, it
> is still required.

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.

-Saravana

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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/