[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e5b44e41-6d5b-2587-2628-3bcfbee4e00b@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 15:09:19 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Shunyong Yang <shunyong.yang@...-semitech.com>,
catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Joey Zheng <yu.zheng@...-semitech.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: topology: Map PPTT node offset to logic
physical package id
On 28/06/18 14:19, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06/28/2018 07:12 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
[...]
>>
>> OK sure. I liked the approach in Shunyong's patch. I was thinking if we
>> can avoid the list and dynamic allocation on each addition and make it
>> more simpler.
>>
>
> This one reads simpler, but yes I agree we should try to avoid the
> dynamic allocation.
>
> OTOH, I think that dropping the dynamic allocation leads to an algorithm
> that picks a value and replaces all the matches. Which of course is
> Andrew's patch, although I did have to read it a couple times to get a
> grasp how it works. I'm guessing that is due to the fact that he seems
> to have optimized 3 double loops into a single loop with two individual
> nested loops. AKA its probably more efficient than the naive
> implementation, but readability seems to have suffered a bit in the
> initial version he posted. I'm not sure the optimization is worth it,
> but I'm guessing there is a middle ground which makes it more readable.
>
Completely agree. RFC from Andrew is not so readable and easy to understand.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists