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: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 10:15:53 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared() On 04-03-17, 01:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > So one idea is that if SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL is set in flags, we don't even > need to start the loop which is quite a cost to simply notice that there's > nothing to do. Hmm. Isn't the probability of this flag being set, same for all CPUs in the policy? If yes, then why do we need to handle the current CPU specially? > Also I don't quite agree with adding an extra pair of integer multiplications > to that loop just to get rid of the extra args. But that should be cheap enough as we would be multiplying with 1 in one of them and with 0 on the other. Isn't that better then keeping same code at two places? Also as I mentioned in the commit log, the number of extra comparisons for the current CPU will be balanced if we have three CPUs in the policy and with every other CPU in the policy, we will end up doing one comparison less. With Quad-core policies, we reduce the number of comparisons by 1 and for octa-core ones, we reduce it by 5. -- viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists