Re: [PATCH 4/5] cpufreq: create cpu/cpufreq/policyX directories

[Saravana Kannan]

On 10/14/2015 11:55 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 13-10-15, 12:29, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > But we don't need to track track of "present-cpus" separately
> > though. We could do the for_each_cpu_and() when we create the
> > symlinks for the first time. And after that, we can just use the
> > subsystem interface callbacks (cpufreq_add_dev() and
> > cpufreq_remove_dev()) to keep the symlinks updated.
> >
> > I don't see any place where keeping track of this separately is more
> > efficient. This would save some memory savings when the number of
> > CPUs is large and also simplify the code because we won't have to
> > keep another field up to date.
>
> It is still required to track when can we free the policy.

Ok, I'm not very familiar with this new field's uses. I'll take a closer 
look later and respond if I have other thoughts.

Thanks,
Saravana

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/