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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <56150D80.8040609@redhat.com> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists