linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] cpufreq / sched: Rework of 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160816120024.GI30192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:00:24 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...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>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] cpufreq / sched: Rework of cpufreq_update_util()
 arguments

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 02:01:29AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> There were some comments on the "cpufreq / sched: cpufreq_update_util() flags
> and iowait boosting" series I sent some time ago and I wanted to address them,
> but for this purpose I had to combine patches [1-2,4/7] from that series
> into one and make some changes on top of that.
> 
> Then I thought it would be better to send that separately from the iowait
> boost part of that series, so here it goes.
> 
> [1/2] Removes the util and max args from cpufreq_update_util() and governor
>       callbacks and adds a flags argument instead of them.  That argument
>       is then used to handle RT and DL in schedutil and the utilization data
>       are accessed by it directly (so it is non-modular now to avoid exporting
>       the scheduler internals to modules).
> [2/2] Replaces the time argument of cpufreq_update_util() with an rq pointer
>       which allows some simplifications to be made.
> 
> There should be no changes in behavior as a result of this.
> 
> The v2 is to address comments from Steve.

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>