linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] cpufreq: Optimize cpufreq_frequency_table

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160603031601.GB23467@vireshk-i7>
Date:	Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:46:01 +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 02-06-16, 11:28, Steve Muckle wrote:
> Shouldn't we be able to avoid extra function calls through the use of
> macros/inlines? Otherwise this is making things slower for schedutil
> than it is today. 
> 
> Actually cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() shouldn't require any calls from
> schedutil when a freq_table is available - the whole thing could be run
> inline.

I will see what I can do on that. Thanks.

-- 
viresh