linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: add cpufreq_driver_resolve

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:	Thu, 21 Jul 2016 13:30:41 -0700
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
	Steve Muckle <smuckle@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: add cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq()

On 21-07-16, 22:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, July 21, 2016 12:59:26 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 13-07-16, 13:25, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > > Cpufreq governors may need to know what a particular target frequency
> > > maps to in the driver without necessarily wanting to set the frequency.
> > > Support this operation via a new cpufreq API,
> > > cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(). This API returns the lowest driver
> > > frequency equal or greater than the target frequency
> > > (CPUFREQ_RELATION_L), subject to any policy (min/max) or driver
> > > limitations. The mapping is also cached in the policy so that a
> > > subsequent fast_switch operation can avoid repeating the same lookup.
> > > 
> > > The API will call a new cpufreq driver callback, resolve_freq(), if it
> > > has been registered by the driver. Otherwise the frequency is resolved
> > > via cpufreq_frequency_table_target(). Rather than require ->target()
> > > style drivers to provide a resolve_freq() callback it is left to the
> > > caller to ensure that the driver implements this callback if necessary
> > > to use cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq().
> > > 
> > > Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Steve Muckle <smuckle@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  include/linux/cpufreq.h   | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 41 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > index 118b4f30a406..b696baeb249d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > @@ -492,6 +492,29 @@ void cpufreq_disable_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > >  }
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_disable_fast_switch);
> > >  
> > > +/**
> > > + * cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq - Map a target frequency to a driver-supported
> > > + * one.
> > > + * @target_freq: target frequency to resolve.
> > > + *
> > > + * The target to driver frequency mapping is cached in the policy.
> > > + *
> > > + * Return: Lowest driver-supported frequency greater than or equal to the
> > > + * given target_freq, subject to policy (min/max) and driver limitations.
> > > + */
> > > +unsigned int cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > > +					 unsigned int target_freq)
> > > +{
> > > +	target_freq = clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max);
> > > +	policy->cached_target_freq = target_freq;
> > > +	if (cpufreq_driver->resolve_freq)
> > > +		return cpufreq_driver->resolve_freq(policy, target_freq);
> > 
> > Any reason why we still have this call around ? I thought the whole
> > attempt I made was to get rid of this :)
> > 
> > The core can do this pretty much now by itself, why do we still want
> > this call?
> 
> In case some drivers that don't use frequency tables want to implemet
> fast switching, for example.

Okay, but in that case shouldn't we do something like this:

unsigned int cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
                                        unsigned int target_freq)
{
       target_freq = clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max);
       policy->cached_target_freq = target_freq;

       if (cpufreq_driver->target_index) {
       		policy->cached_resolved_idx =
       		        cpufreq_frequency_table_target(policy, target_freq,
       		                                       CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
       		return policy->freq_table[policy->cached_resolved_idx].frequency;
       }

       if (cpufreq_driver->resolve_freq)
               return cpufreq_driver->resolve_freq(policy, target_freq);
}

??

-- 
viresh