lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V6] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle injection framework
On 12-06-18, 14:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > +struct idle_injection_device {
>
> remove this:
> > + cpumask_var_t cpumask;
>
> > + struct hrtimer timer;
> > + struct completion stop_complete;
> > + unsigned int idle_duration_ms;
> > + unsigned int run_duration_ms;
> > + atomic_t count;
>
> add:
> unsigned long cpumask[0];
> > +};
>
>
> > +static struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev_alloc(void)
> > +{
> > + struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev;
> > +
> > + ii_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*ii_dev), GFP_KERNEL);
>
> use:
>
> sizeof(*ii_dev) + cpumask_size()
>
> > + if (!ii_dev)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
>
> delete:
>
> > + if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&ii_dev->cpumask, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> > + kfree(ii_dev);
> > + return NULL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ii_dev;
> > +}
>
> And use:
>
> to_cpumask(ii_dev->cpumask)

What's the benefit of these changes? Is it just about not allocating memory
twice or more than that ?

And what could we do in situations where we need two cpumask variables (we have
a case in cpufreq core for that) ?

--
viresh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-13 10:25    [W:0.059 / U:5.476 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site