Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1244171 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-11 19:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-10-13 21:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
[PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: Use cpumask_copy instead of cpumask_or to copy a mask Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2015-10-11 19:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: Use cpumask_copy instead of cpumask_or to copy a mask Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> - 2015-10-12 21:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: Use cpumask_copy instead of cpumask_or to copy a mask Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2015-10-13 05:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: Use cpumask_copy instead of cpumask_or to copy a mask Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> - 2015-10-13 21:30 +0200
| From | Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-11 19:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: Use cpumask_copy instead of cpumask_or to copy a mask |
| Message-ID | <qisBA-6Ef-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 25c4c15103a0..b32521432db4 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -1221,7 +1221,7 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
if (new_policy) {
/* related_cpus should at least include policy->cpus. */
- cpumask_or(policy->related_cpus, policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
+ cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
/* Remember CPUs present at the policy creation time. */
cpumask_and(policy->real_cpus, policy->cpus, cpu_present_mask);
}
--
2.4.0
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-12 21:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: Use cpumask_copy instead of cpumask_or to copy a mask |
| Message-ID | <qiQNB-8hD-43@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1244171 |
On 10/11/2015 10:21 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
The commit text should explain the why you are doing this.
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 25c4c15103a0..b32521432db4 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1221,7 +1221,7 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
>
> if (new_policy) {
> /* related_cpus should at least include policy->cpus. */
> - cpumask_or(policy->related_cpus, policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
> + cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
Again, why? It actually seems wrong. A 4 core cluster could come up with
just 2 cores when the policy is added. But the related CPUs would be 4 CPUs.
> /* Remember CPUs present at the policy creation time. */
> cpumask_and(policy->real_cpus, policy->cpus, cpu_present_mask);
> }
>
-Saravana
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 05:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: Use cpumask_copy instead of cpumask_or to copy a mask |
| Message-ID | <qiYrL-2vS-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1245051 |
On 12-10-15, 12:12, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > if (new_policy) {
> > /* related_cpus should at least include policy->cpus. */
> >- cpumask_or(policy->related_cpus, policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
> >+ cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
>
> Again, why? It actually seems wrong. A 4 core cluster could come up
> with just 2 cores when the policy is added. But the related CPUs
> would be 4 CPUs.
Firstly, the patch hasn't changed anything at all. related_cpus was
empty until this point, and orring or setting it with ->cpus will
result in the same output.
Secondly, this is what we always wanted. related_cpus should contain
the mask of all possible CPUs for that cluster.
--
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 21:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/5] cpufreq: Use cpumask_copy instead of cpumask_or to copy a mask |
| Message-ID | <qjdqO-7D7-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1245311 |
On 10/12/2015 08:23 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12-10-15, 12:12, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>> if (new_policy) {
>>> /* related_cpus should at least include policy->cpus. */
>>> - cpumask_or(policy->related_cpus, policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
>>> + cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, policy->cpus);
>>
>> Again, why? It actually seems wrong. A 4 core cluster could come up
>> with just 2 cores when the policy is added. But the related CPUs
>> would be 4 CPUs.
>
> Firstly, the patch hasn't changed anything at all. related_cpus was
> empty until this point, and orring or setting it with ->cpus will
> result in the same output.
I was under the impression that the CPUfreq drivers were expected to
fill in related_cpus and the or-ing was a safety net. If that's not the
case, then this change is fine.
> Secondly, this is what we always wanted. related_cpus should contain
> the mask of all possible CPUs for that cluster.
I think the confusion was that I thought the drivers are supposed to do
this. If this doesn't mess up other CPUfreq drivers that I'm not
familiar with, then I don't have concerns.
Can you still explain the why in the commit text though? If it's just
that related_cpus is always empty and copying is more efficient than
or-ing, then mention that?
Thanks,
Saravana
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web