linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V9] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle injection framework

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:   Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:48:26 +0200
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        Kevin Wangtao <kevin.wangtao@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
        "open list:POWER MANAGEMENT CORE" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9] powercap/drivers/idle_injection: Add an idle injection
 framework

On 25/06/2018 10:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> [cut]
> 
> One more thing.
> 
>> +/**
>> + * idle_injection_register - idle injection init routine
>> + * @cpumask: the list of CPUs managed by the idle injection device
>> + *
>> + * This is the initialization function in charge of creating the
>> + * initializing of the timer and allocate the structures. It does not
>> + * starts the idle injection cycles.
>> + *
>> + * Return: NULL if an allocation fails.
>> + */
>> +struct idle_injection_device *idle_injection_register(struct cpumask *cpumask)
>> +{
>> +       struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev;
>> +       int cpu, cpu_rb;
>> +
>> +       ii_dev = kzalloc(sizeof(*ii_dev) + cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +       if (!ii_dev)
>> +               return NULL;
>> +
>> +       cpumask_copy(to_cpumask(ii_dev->cpumask), cpumask);
>> +       hrtimer_init(&ii_dev->timer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
>> +       ii_dev->timer.function = idle_injection_wakeup_fn;
>> +
>> +       for_each_cpu(cpu, to_cpumask(ii_dev->cpumask)) {
>> +
>> +               if (per_cpu(idle_injection_device, cpu)) {
>> +                       pr_err("cpu%d is already registered\n", cpu);
> 
> If you print something like this, it should be clear what it is about
> and what piece of code it comes from as there will be no context
> around it it the log.

Is the prefix as pointed by Viresh enough ? Or do want me to add a trace
like:

pr_err("Failed to register 'cpu%d', it is already registered", cpu);
(where "ii_dev:" gives the context)

?


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog