[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f177ef95-ef7e-cab0-1322-6de28f18ecdb@free.fr>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 10:25:37 +0100
From: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] clk: Convert managed get functions to devm_add_action
API
On 02/12/2019 02:42, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:56:30AM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>
>> On Tue 26 Nov 08:13 PST 2019, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 13:56:53 +0100
>>>
>>> Using devm_add_action_or_reset() produces simpler code and smaller
>>> object size:
>>>
>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> text data bss dec hex filename
>>> - 1797 80 0 1877 755 drivers/clk/clk-devres.o
>>> + 1499 56 0 1555 613 drivers/clk/clk-devres.o
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
>>
>> Looks neat
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
>
> This however increases the runtime costs as each custom action cost us
> an extra pointer. Given that in a system we likely have many clocks
> managed by devres, I am not sure that this code savings is actually
> gives us overall win. It might still, I just want to understand how we
> are allocating/packing devres structures.
I'm not 100% sure what you are saying.
Are you arguing that the proposed patch increases the run-time cost of
devm_clk_put() so much that the listed improvements (simpler source code,
smaller object size) are not worth it?
AFAIU, the release action is only called
- explicitly, when devm_clk_put() is called
- implicitly, when the device is removed
How often are clocks removed?
In hot code-path (called hundreds of times per second) it makes sense to
write more complex code, to shave a few cycles every iteration. But in
cold code-path, I think it's better to write short/simple code.
Regards.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists