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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:53:47 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>, Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler utilization data On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:40:54 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:38:55PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 07:14:20 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > +static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > > > > + unsigned int next_freq) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy; > > > > + > > > > + if (next_freq > policy->max) > > > > + next_freq = policy->max; > > > > + else if (next_freq < policy->min) > > > > + next_freq = policy->min; > > > > + > > > > + sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time; > > > > + if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) { > > > > + if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) > > > > + trace_cpu_frequency(policy->cur, smp_processor_id()); > > > > + > > > > + return; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq; > > > > + if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) { > > > > + unsigned int freq; > > > > + > > > > + freq = cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(policy, next_freq); > > > > > > So you're assuming a RELATION_L for ->fast_switch() ? > > > > Yes, I am. > > Should we document that fact somewhere? Or alternatively, if you already > did, I simply missed it. I thought I did, but clearly that's not the case (I think I wrote about that in a changelog comments somewhere). I'll document it in the kerneldoc for cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() (patch [6/7]).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists