linux-kernel - Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency consideration

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: <6bf692e9-402f-a076-749b-c2efb77cf95b@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:36:53 +0800
From:   Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
To:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: 9908859acaa9 cpuidle/menu: add per CPU PM QoS resume latency
 consideration



On 02/22/2017 11:03 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> > 
>> > Yes, the dev_pm_qos_read_value() using a power.lock, that is right for normal device. 
>> > But as to this cpu here, the lock isn't necessary.
>> > 
>> > Hi Rafael,
>> > Is this fix ok?
> That's what I was gonna do, but then figured RT users will take full
> control when it really matters, so took the zero added cycles option
> for RT instead.
> 


Sorry. Mike.
What you mean of 'took the zero added cycles option'? :)

Regards
Alex