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: <20151015065503.GB19018@linux>
Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 2015 12:25:03 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.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 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
--
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/