linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: schedutil: enable fast switch earlier

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:   Fri, 11 Nov 2016 23:55:20 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
        Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: schedutil: enable fast switch earlier

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:52:27PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:52:21PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> @@ -456,8 +460,6 @@ static int sugov_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >>
> >>   out:
> >>       mutex_unlock(&global_tunables_lock);
> >> -
> >> -     cpufreq_enable_fast_switch(policy);
> >>       return 0;
> >>
> >>   fail:
> >> @@ -468,6 +470,10 @@ static int sugov_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >>       mutex_unlock(&global_tunables_lock);
> >>
> >>       sugov_policy_free(sg_policy);
> >> +
> >> + disable_fast_switch:
> >> +     cpufreq_disable_fast_switch(policy);
> >> +
> >>       pr_err("initialization failed (error %d)\n", ret);
> >>       return ret;
> >>  }
> >
> > Argh, no indented labels please. Please fix the 3 that snuck in while
> > you're there.
> 
> Well, you didn't tell me you didn't like them. :-)
> 
> Anyway, I can fix this up easily enough.
> 
> Any other concerns regarding the patch?

No, looked fine I think, as did the others.