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 18:02:30 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.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

On 9 June 2017 at 17:54, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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.

So I saw the issue reported and fixed by 2/3 first and noticed 1/3 while
doing code reviews. So, 1/3 isn't the culprit really as the problem happens
without it as well.

--
viresh