Re: [PATCH v2 1/10] cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update_util() overhead a bit

From	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v2 1/10] cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update_util() overhead a bit
Date	2016-03-09 16:30 +0100
Message-ID	<raOdI-1eq-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<r84I2-18B-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <r8OKR-B1-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <r8OKS-B1-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <raLIS-7XZ-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <raN7Y-yK-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 03:17:48PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > That said, how about the below? It avoids a function call.
> 
> That is fine by me.
> 
> What about taking it a bit further, though, and moving the definition
> of cpufreq_update_util_data to somewhere under kernel/sched/ (like
> kernel/sched/cpufreq.c maybe)?
> 
> Then, the whole static inline void cpufreq_update_util() definition
> can go into kernel/sched/sched.h (it doesn't have to be visible
> anywhere beyond kernel/sched/) and the only thing that needs to be
> exported to cpufreq will be a helper (or two), to set/clear the
> cpufreq_update_util_data pointers.
> 
> I'll try to cut a patch doing that later today for illustration.

Right, that's a blend with your second patch. Sure.

Thread

Re: [PATCH v2 1/10] cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update_util() overhead a  bit Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-03-09 13:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v2 1/10] cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update_util() overhead a bit "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2016-03-09 15:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 1/10] cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update_util() overhead a  bit Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-03-09 16:30 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v2 1/10] cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update_util() overhead a bit "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-03-09 22:40 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v2 1/10] cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update_util() overhead a  bit Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-03-10 10:20 +0100

csiph-web