On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 05:47:18 PM Ming Lei wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > But it doesn't have to walk the children. Moreover, with counters it only > > Yeah, I got it, it is the advantage of counter, but with extra 'int' > field introduced > in 'struct device'. > > > needs to walk the whole path if all devices in it need to be updated. For > > example, if you call pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio(dev, true) for a device > > whose parent's counter is greater than zero already, you don't need to > > walk the path above the parent. > > We still can do it with the flag only, pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio(dev, true) > can return immediately if one parent or the 'dev' flag is true. > > But considered that the pm_runtime_set_memalloc_noio(dev, false) is only > called in a very infrequent path(network/block device->remove()), looks the > introduced cost isn't worthy of the obtained advantage. > > So could you accept not introducing counter? and I will update with the > above improvement you suggested. Well, please see my other message I sent a while ago. :-) Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
