From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754038AbeBGMoa (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2018 07:44:30 -0500 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:38566 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753763AbeBGMo2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Feb 2018 07:44:28 -0500 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 406C2601C4 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=cpandya@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: cache phandle nodes to decrease cost of of_find_node_by_phandle() From: Chintan Pandya To: Frank Rowand , Rob Herring Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1517429142-25727-1-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com> <5b84a166-c71b-3a41-9e7f-a7624a8441f6@codeaurora.org> <38cdcae5-ec0f-d1be-b024-1990d4387731@gmail.com> <9e23d32f-05a0-ce8a-41f8-9a1a3d66be37@codeaurora.org> <567731e8-8f89-bd6e-c3d4-e36400e69198@codeaurora.org> <0db129ef-ffd8-96fe-46a7-55fb575272e3@gmail.com> <0a178f4b-75fe-0564-7b0e-596f52fca1dc@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <1768c791-7456-c1fe-578b-f6245e79746f@codeaurora.org> Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 18:14:23 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0a178f4b-75fe-0564-7b0e-596f52fca1dc@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/5/2018 5:53 PM, Chintan Pandya wrote: > >> >> My question was trying to determine whether the numbers reported above >> are for a debug configuration or a production configuration. > My reported numbers are from debug configuration. > >> not a production configuration, I was requesting the numbers for a >> production configuration. > I'm working on it. But please expect some delay in my response for this. > As I mentioned earlier, I need to work with few teams to get these numbers. > > >> show a significant boot time reduction from the patch then there is >> less justification for adding complexity to the existing code.  I >> prefer to use simpler data structures and algorithms __if__ extra >> complexity does not provide any advantage.  The balance between >> complexity and benefits is a core software engineering issue. >> > Ok Avg Kernel boot time comparison in production set up: [0] Base: 4519ms [1] 4115ms (~400ms improvement) [2] 4115ms (~400ms improvement) [3] 4177ms (~340ms improvement) Full data: [1] 1024 sized pre-populated cache ITR-1 ITR-2 ITR-3 ITR-4 Avg 4115 4123 4124 4107 4115 [2] Dynamic sized cache allocation/free ITR-1 ITR-2 ITR-3 ITR-4 Avg 4122 4131 4106 4118 4115 [3] Fixed 64 sized cache ITR-1 ITR-2 ITR-3 ITR-4 Avg 4153 4186 4198 4181 4177 [1] is my experimental patch and dirty enough to not get merged anywhere. So, I will not push it. Chintan -- Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project