linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Do not schedule policy update work in cpufreq

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:	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:52:09 +0700
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Do not schedule policy update work in
 cpufreq_resume()

On 16-03-16, 01:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> OK, so the problem with doing that in syscore ops is that the I2C bus
> needed for it may not be available at that point, which is fair
> enough.

Not just that. We wouldn't call syscore-ops for the boot-cpu. It never went
away.

> Still, though, the way it is done now is really awful and has to go.
> 
> I guess something along the lines of cpufreq_update_policy() might be
> done in cpufreq_resume() before governors are started, but it might
> even be better to set policy->cur from scratch when starting the
> governors.  Just do driver->get() and set policy->cur to what that
> returns (or just use the average of min and max if ->get is not
> available).  And that unconditionally, regardless of the reason why
> the governors are started.

I think doing it from a somewhat centric location would make more sense then
pushing this for the governors. Maybe the beginning of cpufreq_resume() is good
enough for that.

-- 
viresh