[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160602012904.GV3725@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 06:59:04 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] cpufreq: Optimize cpufreq_frequency_table_target()
On 01-06-16, 12:46, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > /*
> > * Find the closest frequency above target_freq.
> > - *
> > - * The table is sorted in the reverse order with respect to the
> > - * frequency and all of the entries are valid (see the initialization).
> > */
> > - entry = policy->freq_table;
> > - do {
> > - entry++;
> > - freq = entry->frequency;
> > - } while (freq >= target_freq && freq != CPUFREQ_TABLE_END);
> > - entry--;
> > + index = cpufreq_frequency_table_target(policy, target_freq,
> > + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
>
> This adds a function call to the fast path...
I understand that, but I am not sure how far should we go to avoid
that. Open coding routines to save on that isn't a good idea surely.
I have at least kept this routine in cpufreq.h to avoid a call, but
eventually we will have at least a call somewhere within it. :(
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists