linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/7] cpufreq / sched: Check cpu_of(rq) in cpufreq_update

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: <1582934.0pqYKyDQkU@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Tue, 02 Aug 2016 01:43:45 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
Cc:	Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/7] cpufreq / sched: Check cpu_of(rq) in cpufreq_update_util()

On Monday, August 01, 2016 12:48:18 PM Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 09:29:57AM +0200, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > A small nitpick:
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:36:01AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > > +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/sched.h
> > > @@ -1760,7 +1760,7 @@ DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct update_util_data
> > >  
> > >  /**
> > >   * cpufreq_update_util - Take a note about CPU utilization changes.
> > > - * @time: Current time.
> > > + * @rq: Runqueue to carry out the update for.
> > >   *
> > >   * This function is called by the scheduler on every invocation of
> > >   * update_load_avg() on the CPU whose utilization is being updated.
> > 
> > This comment seems to need an update due to the smp_processor_id() check
> > being moved into this function.
> 
> The callers of this have also changed - it is no longer called directly
> by update_load_avg(), rather via cfs_rq_util_change() from several other
> locations (I believe it was my patch that failed to update this
> comment).
> 
> Could this be replaced with a more generic statement such as "called by
> CFS in various paths?"

Good observation.

I'll modify that comment to match the code.

Thanks,
Rafael