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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 01:14:56 +0200 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org> To: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq: schedutil: support scheduler cpufreq callbacks on remote CPUs On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:55:23PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> > +static inline bool sugov_queue_remote_callback(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, >> >> > + int cpu) >> >> > +{ >> >> > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy; >> >> > + >> >> > + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), policy->cpus)) { >> >> >> >> This check is overkill for policies that aren't shared (and we have a >> >> special case for them already). >> > >> > I don't see why it is overkill - >> >> Because it requires more computation, memory accesses etc than simply >> comparing smp_processor_id() with cpu. > > Do you have a preference on how to restructure this? Not really. > Otherwise I'll create a second version of sugov_update_commit, factoring out as much of > it as I can into two inline sub-functions. I guess in that case it might be better to fold the sugov_update_commit() code into its callers and then factor out common stuff into sub-functions called from there.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists