linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/cpufreq/schedutil: handling urgent frequency requests

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: <20180509065449.c5zotxqmuyatjgfd@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 9 May 2018 12:24:49 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/cpufreq/schedutil: handling urgent frequency
 requests

On 09-05-18, 08:45, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 08/05/18 21:54, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Isn't this potentially introducing unneeded irq pressure (and doing the
> whole wakeup the kthread thing), while the already active kthread could
> simply handle multiple back-to-back requests before going to sleep?

And then we may need more instances of the work item and need to store
a different value of next_freq with each work item, as we can't use
the common one anymore as there would be races around accessing it ?

-- 
viresh