linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/10] cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update

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]

Date:	Wed, 9 Mar 2016 16:29:34 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/10] cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update_util() overhead a
 bit

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 03:17:48PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > That said, how about the below? It avoids a function call.
> 
> That is fine by me.
> 
> What about taking it a bit further, though, and moving the definition
> of cpufreq_update_util_data to somewhere under kernel/sched/ (like
> kernel/sched/cpufreq.c maybe)?
> 
> Then, the whole static inline void cpufreq_update_util() definition
> can go into kernel/sched/sched.h (it doesn't have to be visible
> anywhere beyond kernel/sched/) and the only thing that needs to be
> exported to cpufreq will be a helper (or two), to set/clear the
> cpufreq_update_util_data pointers.
> 
> I'll try to cut a patch doing that later today for illustration.

Right, that's a blend with your second patch. Sure.