linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] cpufreq: governors: Solve the ABBA lockups

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160203022234.GM31828@vireshk>
Date:	Wed, 3 Feb 2016 07:52:34 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] cpufreq: governors: Solve the ABBA lockups

On 02-02-16, 21:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > Sorry for doing this, I know you were also looking to fix this in a
> > possibly different way. But I thought, it would be better if we fix
> > that. We can scrap this version and take yours if that looks better.
> 
> That's not nice to be honest.  At the very least you could have asked
> me about the status of my work before sending this.

I started looking into this yesterday morning, while you were away and
finished it before you came back. So, it would have taken more time
and so I just sent them. I don't have any issues (as mentioned
earlier) is discarding them for the work you might have already done.

> Fortunately, though, when I started to look deeper into fixing this
> problem I thought I didn't like the overall design of things in the
> governor land, so I started to change that and my modifications turn
> out to be sort of complementary with respect to this patchset.

That's good.

> Of
> course, they do conflict, but I can redo my patches on top of these if
> that's necessary.

Yeah, even I don't have any issues in rebasing over your work, if I
have to.

> That said I'm going to post them in their current
> form anyway, at least to show the direction I want to take going
> forward.

Sure.

> > I thought, perhaps the best way to fix it is to give separate sysfs-ops
> > to governors. And that's what I did.
> 
> Yes, that's what I was talking about in the other thread.

I must have missed that then :(

> My overall impression here is that the code changes make sense.  Some
> details need to be improved (like the concurrent ->store for governor
> tunables pointed out by Juri). 

> The patch changelogs suck, though.

Like always :(

> If your hope was that this might go into 4.5, there is a small chance
> of that happening, but only if it can be made ready this week.

Will try my best.

> Otherwise, I'd prefer it to be redone on top of my changes.

No worries.

> Let me comment on the individual patches.

Thanks for taking this up Rafael, really appreciate it :)

-- 
viresh