linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] sched: cpufreq: call cpufreq hook from remote CPUs

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: <20160519230419.GB15383@graphite.smuckle.net>
Date:	Thu, 19 May 2016 16:04:19 -0700
From:	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] sched: cpufreq: call cpufreq hook from remote CPUs

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:06:14PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > In the case of a remote update the hook has to run (or not) after it is
> > known whether preemption will occur so we don't do needless work or
> > IPIs. If the policy CPUs aren't known in the scheduler then the early
> > hook will always need to be called along with an indication that it is
> > the early hook being called. If it turns out to be a remote update it
> > could then be deferred to the later hook, which would only be called
> > when a remote update has been deferred and preemption has not occurred.
> >
> > This means two hook inovcations for a remote non-preempting wakeup
> > though instead of one.  Perhaps this is a good middle ground on code
> > churn vs. optimization though.
> 
> I would think so.

Ok, I will pursue this approach.

thanks,
Steve