linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq, intel_pstate, set max_sysfs_pct and min_sysfs

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:	Wed, 07 Oct 2015 08:18:08 -0400
From:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
CC:	Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq, intel_pstate, set max_sysfs_pct and min_sysfs_pct
 on governor switch



On 10/06/2015 07:06 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:43:55 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 05:49:07 PM Prarit Bhargava wrote:

<snip>

>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>>> index 3af9dd7..bb24458 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>>> @@ -986,6 +986,9 @@ static int intel_pstate_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>>  	if (!policy->cpuinfo.max_freq)
>>>  		return -ENODEV;
>>>  
>>> +	limits.min_sysfs_pct = 0;
>>> +	limits.max_sysfs_pct = 100;
>>> +
>>>  	if (policy->policy == CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE &&
>>>  	    policy->max >= policy->cpuinfo.max_freq) {
>>>  		limits.min_policy_pct = 100;
>>> @@ -1004,9 +1007,9 @@ static int intel_pstate_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>>  	limits.max_policy_pct = clamp_t(int, limits.max_policy_pct, 0 , 100);
>>>  
>>>  	/* Normalize user input to [min_policy_pct, max_policy_pct] */
>>> -	limits.min_perf_pct = max(limits.min_policy_pct, limits.min_sysfs_pct);
>>> +	limits.min_perf_pct = limits.min_policy_pct;
>>>  	limits.min_perf_pct = min(limits.max_policy_pct, limits.min_perf_pct);
>>> -	limits.max_perf_pct = min(limits.max_policy_pct, limits.max_sysfs_pct);
>>> +	limits.max_perf_pct = limits.max_sysfs_pct;
> 
> On a second thought, isn't that always 100?  If so, doesn't it basically discard
> limits.max_policy_pct?

Wow :)  I think you're right and that definitely was an unintended consequence
of this patch.  I also see that I can clean up the intel_pstate_set_policy()
code a bit more.  I'll submit a 2-part v2.

P.

--
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/