linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 18/19] cpufreq: remove transition

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, 20 Jan 2016 23:38:09 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	steve.muckle@...aro.org,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 18/19] cpufreq: remove transition_lock

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:12:45PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I would dangle _everything_ off the one driver pointer, that's much
> > easier.
> 
> I'm not sure how much easier it is in practice.
> 
> Even if everything dangles out of the driver pointer, data structures
> pointed to by those things need not be allocated all in one go by the
> same entity.  Some of them are allocated by drivers, some of them by
> the core, at different times.

Yes, I've noticed, some of that is really bonkers.

> The ordering between those allocations
> and populating the pointers is what matters, not how all that is laid
> out in memory.

I'm thinking getting that ordering right is easier/more natural, if its
all contained in one object. But this could be subjective.