mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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®