linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Manage only online cpus

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]

Message-ID: <4137114.myBUIQvsg3@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:04:24 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
	amit.kucheria@...aro.org, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	pdsw-power-team@....com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Manage only online cpus

On Sunday, December 16, 2012 11:20:08 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> cpufreq core doesn't manage offline cpus and if driver->init() has returned
> mask including offline cpus, it may result in unwanted behavior by cpufreq core
> or governors.
> 
> We need to get only online cpus in this mask. There are two places to fix this
> mask, cpufreq core and cpufreq driver. It makes sense to do this at common place
> and hence is done in core.

Well, this series makes sense to me, but I'd like to hear what the other people
think.

Thanks,
Rafael


> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 1f93dbd..de99517 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -970,6 +970,13 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, struct subsys_interface *sif)
>  		pr_debug("initialization failed\n");
>  		goto err_unlock_policy;
>  	}
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * affected cpus must always be the one, which are online. We aren't
> +	 * managing offline cpus here.
> +	 */
> +	cpumask_and(policy->cpus, policy->cpus, cpu_online_mask);
> +
>  	policy->user_policy.min = policy->min;
>  	policy->user_policy.max = policy->max;
>  
> 
-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/