Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1594842
| From | Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared() |
| Date | 2017-03-08 05:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tiBeV-17Q-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <th5Au-t5-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <thSKS-2BN-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <ti05H-8bx-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tikH8-6ao-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <tinlD-83G-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 07-03-17, 14:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > Why do you think so? I thought all CPU in the policy can have the RT/DL flag set > > and the probability of all of them is just the same. > > Well, yes, but if the current CPU has that flag set already, we surely > don't need to check the other ones in the policy? That's true for every other CPU in policy too.. > >> So to the point, the code was written this way on purpose and not just > >> by accident as your changelog suggests and > > > > I didn't wanted to convey that really and I knew that it was written on purpose. > > > >> if you want to change it, you need numbers. > > > > What kind of numbers can we get for such a change ? I tried to take the running > > average of the time it takes to execute this routine over 10000 samples, but it > > varies a lot even with the same build. Any tests like hackbench, etc wouldn't be > > of any help as well. > > So why do you think it needs to be changed, but really? > > Is that because it is particularly hard to follow or similar? Just that I didn't like keeping the same code at two places (outside and inside the loop) and the benefit it has. Anyway, its not straight forward to get any numbers supporting my argument. I can claim improvement only theoretically by comparing the number of comparisons that we may end up doing for quad or octa core policies. Lets abandon this patch as I failed to convince you :) Thanks for applying the other two patches though. Cheers. -- viresh
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared() Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-03-02 09:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared() "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-03-04 01:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared() Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-03-06 05:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared() "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2017-03-06 13:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared() Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-03-07 11:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared() "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2017-03-07 14:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared() Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-03-08 05:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared() "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2017-03-08 12:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared() Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-03-08 12:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared() "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2017-03-08 14:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: schedutil: remove redundant code from sugov_next_freq_shared() "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-03-04 01:20 +0100
csiph-web