From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Saravana Kannan Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/18] cpufreq: Manage fallback policies in a list Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 14:28:11 -0800 Message-ID: <54D14B7B.8040307@codeaurora.org> References: <43d728016b775d1b0fc02c981eb0520ac08297f5.1422346933.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.11.231]:42851 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752601AbbBCW2M (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2015 17:28:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: <43d728016b775d1b0fc02c981eb0520ac08297f5.1422346933.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Rafael Wysocki , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, sboyd@codeaurora.org, prarit@redhat.com On 01/27/2015 12:36 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Policies manage a group of CPUs and tracking them on per-cpu basis isn't the > best approach for sure. > > The obvious loss is the amount of memory consumed for keeping a per-cpu copy of > the same pointer. But the bigger problem is managing such a data structure as we > need to update it for all policy->cpus. > > To make it simple, lets manage fallback CPUs in a list rather than a per-cpu > variable. Can you explain why we need a fallback list in the first place? Now that we are not destroying and creating policy objects, I don't see any point in the fallback list. -Saravana -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation