Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 28 Jun 2018 16:51:25 +0200
From:   Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@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
Message-ID: <20180628145125.2psdmymtuueiv4xn@kamzik.brq.redhat.com>
References: <1530177508-15298-1-git-send-email-shunyong.yang@hxt-semitech.com>
 <cb057c6a-0eb4-581e-c259-7a31545e0ae7@arm.com>
 <20180628115748.kprobde6c3joc6ll@kamzik.brq.redhat.com>
 <f9376e47-e2ae-b2f4-db23-07698364f1bb@arm.com>
 <b9b537e7-8f7b-07cc-a99d-bcaa8f5d60d5@arm.com>
 <e5b44e41-6d5b-2587-2628-3bcfbee4e00b@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e5b44e41-6d5b-2587-2628-3bcfbee4e00b@arm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180622
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 03:09:19PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Middle ground coming up. At the expense of a triple-nested loop (which
will never be N^3 iterations due to conditions at the start of each loop),
we can avoid dynamic allocations and list iterations and still gain
readability.

Thanks,
drew