linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Do not schedule policy update work in cpufreq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160317064453.GD14898@vireshk-mac-ubuntu>
Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:44:53 +0700
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Do not schedule policy update work in
 cpufreq_resume()

On 16-03-16, 13:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:52 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> > Not just that. We wouldn't call syscore-ops for the boot-cpu. It never went
> > away.
> 
> Yes, we would.
> 
> We actually call syscore ops *only* on that CPU.

Ahh, I thought you are talking about subsys-callbacks which we use while
registering cpufreq drivers.

> >> Still, though, the way it is done now is really awful and has to go.
> >>
> >> I guess something along the lines of cpufreq_update_policy() might be
> >> done in cpufreq_resume() before governors are started, but it might
> >> even be better to set policy->cur from scratch when starting the
> >> governors.  Just do driver->get() and set policy->cur to what that
> >> returns (or just use the average of min and max if ->get is not
> >> available).  And that unconditionally, regardless of the reason why
> >> the governors are started.
> >
> > I think doing it from a somewhat centric location would make more sense then
> > pushing this for the governors.
> 
> I'm not talking about doing that in governors, but in
> cpufreq_governor() when the event is _START.

Yeah, that shall be fine.

-- 
viresh