linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] drivers base/arch_topology: inline cpu- and frequency-invariant accounting

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:   Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:27:53 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux@....linux.org.uk,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] drivers base/arch_topology: inline cpu- and
 frequency-invariant accounting

Sure this patch looks pretty useful, but ...

On 06-07-17, 10:49, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> index 63fb3f945d21..b4481cff14bf 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> @@ -22,12 +22,7 @@
>  #include <linux/string.h>
>  #include <linux/sched/topology.h>
>  
> -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, freq_scale) = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
> -
> -unsigned long topology_get_freq_scale(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu)
> -{
> -	return per_cpu(freq_scale, cpu);
> -}
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, freq_scale) = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;

... you just undo what you did earlier in this series, and that is somewhat
discouraged.

What about making this as the first patch of the series and move only the below
part to the header. And then you can add the above part to the right place in
the first attempt itself?

But maybe this is all okay :)

-- 
viresh