linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] thermal/cpu_cooling: remove local cooling state variable

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: <20150801113405.GL899@linux>
Date:	Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:04:05 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Radivoje Jovanovic <radivoje.jovanovic@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
	Radivoje Jovanovic <radivoje.jovanovic@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal/cpu_cooling: remove local cooling state variable

On 31-07-15, 08:30, Radivoje Jovanovic wrote:
> I just looked over the notifier in the current upstream (my patch was
> made on our production kernel which is 3.14 and has old notifier
> implementation with notifier_device in place) and I see your point.

That's disappointing. You were expected to check if the same problem
exists in mainline.

> I agree with you that this patch is trivial for the current
> implementation since the notifier, as it is currently, will enforce
> cpu_cooling policy change at every CPUFREQ_ADJUST which would cause
> problems in our current implementation. In our implementation there is
> a cpufreq driver that will also change policies during CPUFREQ_ADJUST,
> once the request comes from the underlying FW so there would be a fight
> who gets there first since cpu_cooling will change the policy in
> CPUFREQ_ADJUST notifier_chain and the driver would do the same thing.
> It seems to me that better implementation of the cpu_cooling notifer
> would be to keep the flag and change the policy in CPUFREQ_ADJUST only
> when the change was requested by cpu_cooling, and update the current
> state of cpufreq_cooling_device during CPUFREQ_NOTIFY event.
> What do you think?

I think the way cpu-cooling is written today, is an *ugly* hack. We hack
the notifier to change policy->max and no one is notified for it.

That's crap.

I would rather get some help from cpufreq core on that. Which can
provide some APIs to take care of thermal considerations.

Okay, I push that to my todo list. Will keep you all posted.

-- 
viresh
--
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/