linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: brcmstb-avs-cpufreq: sort frequencies in ascending order

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: <20180517041448.ceh4g5fs2qfqqojm@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Thu, 17 May 2018 09:44:48 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Markus Mayer <code@...yer.net>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@...il.com>,
        Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>,
        Broadcom Kernel List <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
        Power Management List <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: brcmstb-avs-cpufreq: sort frequencies in
 ascending order

On 16-05-18, 12:24, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 05/15/2018 09:32 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 15-05-18, 20:49, Markus Mayer wrote:
> >> From: Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>
> >>
> >> Most CPUfreq drivers (at least on ARM) seem to be sorting the available
> >> frequencies from lowest to highest. To match this behaviour, we reverse
> >> the sorting order in brcmstb-avs-cpufreq, so it is now also lowest to
> >> highest.
> > 
> > The reasoning isn't correct. Just because everyone else is doing it
> > doesn't make it right and so you shouldn't change just because of
> > that.
> > 
> > What you must written instead in the commit log is that the cpufreq
> > core performs better if the table is sorted (in any order), and so we
> > must sort it as well.
> 
> Is there a reason why set_freq_table_sorted() tries an ascending or
> descending sort, but does not enforce one versus another for all drivers?

set_freq_table_sorted() doesn't sort the frequency table but checks if
the table is already sorted in a particular order. And then
cpufreq_frequency_table_target() is optimized based on this flag. We
don't have to enforce any particular ordering here.

> > But I feel the table is already sorted for your platform, isn't it?
> > And I don't see a clear advantage of merging this patch.
> 
> The patch changes the order to have the lowest to highest, whereas the
> current implementation has them from highest to lowest. From what you
> are saying, it sounds like this is unnecessary, since the sorting is
> already making things efficient enough, so this is just a cosmetic thing?

Right. It shouldn't make any performance improvements.

-- 
viresh