linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] intel_pstate: delete scheduler hook in HWP mode

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: <CAJvTdK==SctxEJ_HQvLaK+LXhMQfq1teYWW41x3kM82Xj2OgqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Jun 2017 21:27:46 -0400
From:   Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] intel_pstate: delete scheduler hook in HWP mode

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 07, 2017 07:39:16 PM Len Brown wrote:
>> From: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
>>
>> The cpufreqa/scaling_cur_freq sysfs attribute is now provided by
>> the x86 cpufreq core on all modern x86 systems, including
>> all systems supported by the intel_pstate driver.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "x86 cpufreq core"?

I refer to code that builds if (CONFIG_X86 && CONFIG_CPU_FREQ)

Since it was enough to provoke a comment form you, how about this wording?:

The cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq sysfs attribute is now provided by
shared x86 cpufreq code on modern x86 systems, including
all systems supported by the intel_pstate driver.

> Besides, I'd reorder this change with respect to patch [4/5] as this
> eliminates the hook entirely and then the "performance"-related change
> would only affect non-HWP.

I don't actually see a problem with either order,
but i'll send the refresh with the order you suggest.

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center