From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>, Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Shunyong Yang <shunyong.yang@hxt-semitech.com>,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Joey Zheng <yu.zheng@hxt-semitech.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: topology: Map PPTT node offset to logic physical package id
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 15:09:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e5b44e41-6d5b-2587-2628-3bcfbee4e00b@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b9b537e7-8f7b-07cc-a99d-bcaa8f5d60d5@arm.com>
On 28/06/18 14:19, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06/28/2018 07:12 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
[...]
>>
>> OK sure. I liked the approach in Shunyong's patch. I was thinking if we
>> can avoid the list and dynamic allocation on each addition and make it
>> more simpler.
>>
>
> This one reads simpler, but yes I agree we should try to avoid the
> dynamic allocation.
>
> OTOH, I think that dropping the dynamic allocation leads to an algorithm
> that picks a value and replaces all the matches. Which of course is
> Andrew's patch, although I did have to read it a couple times to get a
> grasp how it works. I'm guessing that is due to the fact that he seems
> to have optimized 3 double loops into a single loop with two individual
> nested loops. AKA its probably more efficient than the naive
> implementation, but readability seems to have suffered a bit in the
> initial version he posted. I'm not sure the optimization is worth it,
> but I'm guessing there is a middle ground which makes it more readable.
>
Completely agree. RFC from Andrew is not so readable and easy to understand.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-28 14:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-28 9:18 Shunyong Yang
2018-06-28 9:38 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-06-28 11:57 ` Andrew Jones
2018-06-28 12:12 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-06-28 13:19 ` Jeremy Linton
2018-06-28 14:09 ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2018-06-28 14:51 ` Andrew Jones
2018-06-28 15:44 ` Yang, Shunyong
2018-06-28 16:45 ` Sudeep Holla
2018-07-12 11:06 ` Will Deacon
2018-07-12 11:20 ` Sudeep Holla
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e5b44e41-6d5b-2587-2628-3bcfbee4e00b@arm.com \
--to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=drjones@redhat.com \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shunyong.yang@hxt-semitech.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=yu.zheng@hxt-semitech.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®