linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq

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: <20160603000134.GS3725@vireshk-i7>
Date:	Fri, 3 Jun 2016 05:31:34 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
	Steven Miao <realmz6@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] cpufreq: Keep policy->freq_table sorted

On 02-06-16, 22:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Quoting from this very cover letter "This change allows us to remove
> the (duplicate) sorted-freq-table, which
> was added by following series:", so why to add it in the first place?

Okay, that's fine.

> Besides, there already is a number of tables (per policy which in some
> important cases pretty much means per CPU) in cpufreq that contain
> more-or-less the same information.  For example, if acpi-cpufreq is in
> use, the ACPI layer has a table coming from _PSS, the driver creates
> freq_table to pass to the core and there is an additional one for the
> stats.  And your series adds one more just so it is ordered.  Come on.

Of course.

> If you want to clean that up, fine, but please don't do that in a
> hurry.  Let's talk about it a bit more without sending any more
> patches in that area for the time being.

Okay, I will send all the fixes that you can apply cleanly now in a
separate set.

So, yeah, I get your overall concern. What about this:
- A single patchset to make sure the current policy->freq_table is
  always sorted in Ascending order of frequencies.
- And this sorting will be done per policy only when the policy is
  first created.
- Which would eventually mean merging this series with the [v2 0/2]
  one.

Will that work ?

-- 
viresh