lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1] clk: Convert managed get functions to devm_add_action API
From
Date
On 02/12/2019 02:42, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:56:30AM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>
>> On Tue 26 Nov 08:13 PST 2019, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 13:56:53 +0100
>>>
>>> Using devm_add_action_or_reset() produces simpler code and smaller
>>> object size:
>>>
>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> text data bss dec hex filename
>>> - 1797 80 0 1877 755 drivers/clk/clk-devres.o
>>> + 1499 56 0 1555 613 drivers/clk/clk-devres.o
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr>
>>
>> Looks neat
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
>
> This however increases the runtime costs as each custom action cost us
> an extra pointer. Given that in a system we likely have many clocks
> managed by devres, I am not sure that this code savings is actually
> gives us overall win. It might still, I just want to understand how we
> are allocating/packing devres structures.

I'm not 100% sure what you are saying.

Are you arguing that the proposed patch increases the run-time cost of
devm_clk_put() so much that the listed improvements (simpler source code,
smaller object size) are not worth it?

AFAIU, the release action is only called
- explicitly, when devm_clk_put() is called
- implicitly, when the device is removed

How often are clocks removed?

In hot code-path (called hundreds of times per second) it makes sense to
write more complex code, to shave a few cycles every iteration. But in
cold code-path, I think it's better to write short/simple code.

Regards.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-02 10:26    [W:0.039 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site