linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/12] cpufreq: governor: Fix CPU load information updates via ->store

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: <20160218054442.GL2610@vireshk-i7>
Date:	Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:14:42 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/12] cpufreq: governor: Fix CPU load information updates
 via ->store

On 18-02-16, 02:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
>  
>  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s, od_cpu_dbs_info);
>  
> +static struct dbs_governor od_dbs_gov;
>  static struct od_ops od_ops;
>  
>  static unsigned int default_powersave_bias;
> @@ -222,7 +223,6 @@ static ssize_t store_io_is_busy(struct d
>  {
>  	unsigned int input;
>  	int ret;
> -	unsigned int j;
>  
>  	ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &input);
>  	if (ret != 1)
> @@ -230,12 +230,8 @@ static ssize_t store_io_is_busy(struct d
>  	dbs_data->io_is_busy = !!input;
>  
>  	/* we need to re-evaluate prev_cpu_idle */
> -	for_each_online_cpu(j) {
> -		struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info = &per_cpu(od_cpu_dbs_info,
> -									j);
> -		dbs_info->cdbs.prev_cpu_idle = get_cpu_idle_time(j,
> -			&dbs_info->cdbs.prev_cpu_wall, dbs_data->io_is_busy);
> -	}

We weren't doing ignore_nice_load check here, but will be done after
this patch. Will that make a different? And then this should be
mentioned in the log as well ?

Apart from that.

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>

-- 
viresh