linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: schedutil: Fix 4.12 regressions

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]

Date:   Fri, 9 Jun 2017 14:24:53 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        John <john.ettedgui@...il.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: schedutil: Fix 4.12 regressions

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> I have identified some regressions with the schedutil governor which
> happen due to one of your patches that got merged in 4.12-rc1.
>
> This series fixes all the drivers which provide a ->target_index()
> callback but doesn't fix the drivers which provide ->target() callback.
>
> Such platforms need to implement the ->resolve_freq() callback in order
> to get this fixed and I only had hardware for testing intel_pstate,
> which I fixed in this series.
>
> I am wondering if there is another way to fix this issue (than what I
> tried) or if we should revert the offending commit (39b64aa1c007) and
> look for other solutions.

To my eyes, patch [1/3] fixes the problem and then the remaining ones
deal with the issues resulting from that.

I'd rather revert and revisit at this point.

Thanks,
Rafael