Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: optimize policy_is_shared()

From: Viresh Kumar

Date: Tue Mar 17 2026 - 02:50:15 EST


On 14-03-26, 15:25, Yury Norov wrote:
> The switch to cpumask_nth() over cpumask_weight(), as it may return
> earlier - as soon as the function counts the required number of CPUs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <ynorov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> index cc894fc38971..8ca2bcb3d7ae 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> @@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ static inline bool policy_is_inactive(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>
> static inline bool policy_is_shared(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> {
> - return cpumask_weight(policy->cpus) > 1;
> + return cpumask_nth(1, policy->cpus) < nr_cpumask_bits;
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>

--
viresh