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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20171214044523.GV3322@vireshk-i7> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:15:23 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] cpufreq: schedutil: update CFS util only if used On 07-12-17, 14:19, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > On 07-Dec 10:45, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 30-11-17, 15:57, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > > Yes, that's a pretty trivial update with a confusing changelog. > > > > > > If we think it's worth to keep (and correct as well) I'll update the > > > commit message. > > > > We also need to update the commit log based on feedback from Vikram on > > V2. Which said that the utilization can't change around the lock here > > as we are within rq lock section, though max can change (maybe). So > > this patch only takes care of locking before reading max. I have more doubts on the max reason as well. Max isn't protected by the sg_policy lock of schedutil and it can change any time. So even after moving code around with this patch, we wouldn't fix any race and so I am not sure this patch helps at all. But, I have sent the same diff for another reason now in my series. Maybe I should have kept you as the author of that patch, but I forgot. Will do that if I need to send a V2. > Ok, right... will do. > > Thus you are still of the opinion to keep this patch in the series? Yes, but we need a good reason for that :) -- viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists