linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: cppc_cpufreq: Initialize shared cpu's perf capabilities

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1522663241.8018.3.camel@hxt-semitech.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Apr 2018 10:00:42 +0000
From:   "Yang, Shunyong" <shunyong.yang@...-semitech.com>
To:     "viresh.kumar@...aro.org" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Zheng, Joey" <yu.zheng@...-semitech.com>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: cppc_cpufreq: Initialize shared cpu's perf
 capabilities

Hi, Kumar,

On Mon, 2018-04-02 at 12:38 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 28-03-18, 17:31, Shunyong Yang wrote:
> > 
> > When multiple cpus are related in one cpufreq policy, the first
> > online
> > cpu will be chosen by default to handle cpufreq operations. Let's
> > take
> > cpu0 and cpu1 as an example.
> > 
> > When cpu0 is offline, policy->cpu will be shifted to cpu1. Cpu1's
> > should
> > be initialized. Otherwise, perf capabilities are 0s and speed
> > change can
> > not take effect.
> > 
> > This patch copies perf capabilities of the first online cpu to
> > other
> > shared cpus when policy shared type is CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ANY.
> > 
> > Cc: Joey Zheng <yu.zheng@...-semitech.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Shunyong Yang <shunyong.yang@...-semitech.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > The original RFC link,
> >   https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10299055/.
> > 
> > This patch solves same issue as RFC above.
> > 
> > Patch name is changed as code is too much different with RFC above.
> > 
> > Remove extra init() per Viresh Kumar's comments and only handle
> > CPPC CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ANY case.
> > 
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > index 8f7b21a4d537..dc625a93a58e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> > @@ -164,8 +164,18 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct
> > cpufreq_policy *policy)
> >  	policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency =
> > cppc_get_transition_latency(cpu_num);
> >  	policy->shared_type = cpu->shared_type;
> >  
> > -	if (policy->shared_type == CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ANY)
> > +	if (policy->shared_type == CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ANY) {
> > +		int i;
> > +
> >  		cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, cpu->shared_cpu_map);
> > +
> > +		for_each_cpu(i, policy->cpus) {
> > +			if (i != policy->cpu)
> I would rather do:
> 
>                         if (unlikely(i == policy->cpu))
>                                 continue;

Thanks. Will change in v2.

> > 
> > +				memcpy(&all_cpu_data[i]-
> > >perf_caps,
> > +				       &cpu->perf_caps,
> > +				       sizeof(cpu->perf_caps));
> > +		}
> > +	}
> >  	else if (policy->shared_type == CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ALL) {
> It should be:
> 
>   	} else if (policy->shared_type == CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ALL)
> {
> 

Thanks. Will change in v2. I ignored this as checkpatch.pl reports
nothing here.

Thanks.
Shunyong.


> > 
> >  		/* Support only SW_ANY for now. */
> >  		pr_debug("Unsupported CPU co-ord type\n");
> And thanks for making it work this way.
>