Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: optimize policy_is_shared()

[Zhongqiu Han]

On 3/15/2026 3:25 AM, Yury Norov wrote:
> The switch to cpumask_nth() over cpumask_weight(), as it may return
> earlier - as soon as the function counts the required number of CPUs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <ynorov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   include/linux/cpufreq.h | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> index cc894fc38971..8ca2bcb3d7ae 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> @@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ static inline bool policy_is_inactive(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>   
>   static inline bool policy_is_shared(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>   {
> -	return cpumask_weight(policy->cpus) > 1;
> +	return cpumask_nth(1, policy->cpus) < nr_cpumask_bits;
>   }
>   
>   #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ

Thanks. While I had a minor readability/API-nit earlier, I'm fine with
the patch as-is.

Reviewed-by: Zhongqiu Han <zhongqiu.han@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

--
Thx and BRs,
Zhongqiu Han