[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160113082113.3314fa92@icelake>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:21:13 -0800
From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
X86 Kernel <x86@...nel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] powercap/rapl: reduce ipi calls
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:47:26 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> So here you actually use that new (misnomed) function, but for
>
> > +static void power_limit_irq_save_cpu(void *info)
>
> and
>
> > +static void power_limit_irq_restore_cpu(void *info)
>
> you use a bog standard smp function call. What's the benefit of
> adding that rmw function over a bog standard smp function call if you
> can only use it for one instance of the same pattern?
>
> Boris asked you the same question here
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20151220152749.GA29805@pd.tnic
>
> but you decided to ignore it.
+Borislav,
Thanks for bring this out. I didn't mean to ignore. I thought my point
was stated in the commit message there was no point of going back and
forth. Read-Modify-Write is quite common, not just for RAPL could be
used by future code. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Jacob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists