On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Steve Muckle <steve.muc...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:55:23PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> > +static inline bool sugov_queue_remote_callback(struct sugov_policy
>> >> > *sg_policy,
>> >> > + int cpu)
>> >> > +{
>> >> > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
>> >> > +
>> >> > + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), policy->cpus)) {
>> >>
>> >> This check is overkill for policies that aren't shared (and we have a
>> >> special case for them already).
>> >
>> > I don't see why it is overkill -
>>
>> Because it requires more computation, memory accesses etc than simply
>> comparing smp_processor_id() with cpu.
>
> Do you have a preference on how to restructure this?
Not really.
> Otherwise I'll create a second version of sugov_update_commit, factoring out
> as much of
> it as I can into two inline sub-functions.
I guess in that case it might be better to fold the
sugov_update_commit() code into its callers and then factor out common
stuff into sub-functions called from there.
