linux-kernel - Re: [Update][PATCH v7 6/7] cpufreq: Support for fast frequency switching

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, 30 Mar 2016 13:28:58 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Update][PATCH v7 6/7] cpufreq: Support for fast frequency switching

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:07 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 30-03-16, 03:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -843,6 +883,7 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct
>>       pr_debug("acpi_cpufreq_cpu_exit\n");
>>
>>       if (data) {
>> +             policy->fast_switch_possible = false;
>
> Is this done just for keeping code symmetric or is there a logical advantage
> of this? Just for my understanding, not saying that it is wrong.

It is not necessary for correctness today, as schedutil will be the
only governor using fast switch, but generally that prevents leaking
configuration information from one governor to another.

Thanks,
Rafael