linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 6/9] cpufreq: ondemand: queue work for policy->cpus together

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 8 Sep 2015 07:41:01 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	preeti.lkml@...il.com, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 6/9] cpufreq: ondemand: queue work for policy->cpus
 together

On 08-09-15, 03:33, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > +		/* Make sure the work is not canceled on policy->cpus */
> 
> I'm not sure what scenario can lead to that.  Care to explain?

CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP event called for the policy and so all its works
are in canceled state.

> > +		if (!dbs_info->cdbs.shared->policy)
> >  			continue;
> >  
> >  		next_sampling = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(new_rate);
> >  		appointed_at = dbs_info->cdbs.dwork.timer.expires;
> 
> For that to work we always need to do stuff for policy->cpus in sync.
> Do we?

Hmm, we are not in 100% sync for sure. Will check that again.

-- 
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/