[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1452722083.3092.92.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:54:43 -0800
From: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
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>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] powercap/rapl: reduce ipi calls
On Wed, 2016-01-13 at 22:26 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
[Cut]
>
> rmwmsrl_safe_on_cpu(policy->cpu, MSR_IA32_PERF_CTL,
> INTEL_PERF_CTL_MASK,
> (u32)sfi_cpufreq_array[next_perf_state].ctr
> l_val & INTEL_PERF_CTL_MASK);
>
> Yikes!
>
> So yes, it can work but it is ugly, hard to parse and use, not
> generic
> enough, etc, etc.
>
> So thanks, but no thanks.
>
I agree, in some cases it will not make much sense to use read-
modify_write calls, the user may decide whether it makes sense or not.
But such interface is not new to Linux kernel:
regmap_update_bits(), which is referenced for 346 times.
Are you saying that any such calls are not useful?
Thanks,
Srinivas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists