[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b0732ade-3ea5-4688-aa10-3416310542e6@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 10:23:38 +0530
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
To: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
CC: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Steven Rostedt
<rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman
<mgorman@...e.de>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Chen Yu
<yu.c.chen@...el.com>, "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>, "Ingo
Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Juri Lelli
<juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] sched/topology: Switch to assigning "sd->shared"
from s_data
On 1/23/2026 9:38 AM, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
>> I can put the claim_allocations() bits the previous loop and pass the
>> CPU and the s_data reference so it can free both "d.sds" and all the
>> "d.sd" bits in one place and retain this reverse loop for
>> init_sched_groups_capacity(). Does that sound better?
>>
>
> Yes.IMO Having it in one place is better.
> Even the next loop could be used to do that.
Ack! Will change accordingly in the next version. Thank you again for
the suggestion.
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists