linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] x86: Enable Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0

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: <1475683520.3916.285.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 05 Oct 2016 09:05:20 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     rjw@...ysocki.net, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...e.de, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org, jolsa@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/9] x86: Enable Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0

On Wed, 2016-10-05 at 16:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2016, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> > 
> > +void sched_set_itmt_support(bool itmt_supported)
> > +{
> > +	mutex_lock(&itmt_update_mutex);
> > +
> > +	if (itmt_supported != sched_itmt_capable)
> > +		sched_itmt_capable = itmt_supported;
> Yikes. What is this conditional for? The only value it has is to confuse
> the reader.

Will remove the check.

> 
> > 
> > +
> > +	mutex_unlock(&itmt_update_mutex);
> > +}
> > +
> > +DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(int, sched_core_priority);
> Darn. Do not stick variable definitiions in the middle of the code and
> especially not glued to the function w/o a newline in between. Move it to
> the top of the file.

Will move to top of file.

> 
> > 
> > +int arch_asym_cpu_priority(int cpu)
> > +{
> > +	return per_cpu(sched_core_priority, cpu);
> > +}
> 
> > 
> > +void sched_set_itmt_core_prio(int prio, int core_cpu)
> > +{
> > +	int cpu, i = 1;
> > +
> > +	for_each_cpu(cpu, topology_sibling_cpumask(core_cpu)) {
> > +		int smt_prio;
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Ensure that the siblings are moved to the end
> > +		 * of the priority chain and only used when
> > +		 * all other high priority cpus are out of capacity.
> > +		 */
> > +		smt_prio = prio * smp_num_siblings / i;
> > +		i++;
> Your code ordering is really random. What has this i++ to do with the
> store? Nothing. It just makes reading the code harder. Just move it below
> the store.

Will move it to the end of for loop.

> 
> > 
> > +		per_cpu(sched_core_priority, cpu) = smt_prio;

Thanks.

Tim