linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 6/6] PM / Domains: Propagate performance state updates

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: <20181214063321.5i2hqoufw7jc3a2i@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Fri, 14 Dec 2018 12:03:21 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 6/6] PM / Domains: Propagate performance state updates

On 13-12-18, 16:53, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 11:58, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> >  update_state:
> > -       return _genpd_set_performance_state(genpd, state);
> > +       return _genpd_set_performance_state(genpd, state, depth);
> 
> Instead of calling _genpd_set_performance_state() from here, I suggest
> to let the caller do it. Simply return the aggregated new state, if it
> needs to be updated - and zero if no update is needed.
> 
> Why? I think it may clarify and simplify the code, in regards to the
> actual set/propagation of state changes. Another side-effect, is that
> you should be able to avoid the forward declaration of
> _genpd_reeval_performance_state(), which I think is nice as well.

_genpd_reeval_performance_state() is currently called from 3 different
places and with the suggested change those sites will have this diff.

-               ret = _genpd_reeval_performance_state(master, master_state,
-                                                     depth + 1);
+               master_state = _genpd_reeval_performance_state(master,
+                                               master_state);
+               ret = _genpd_set_performance_state(genpd, master_state, depth);

To be honest, I don't like it. Probably because I don't find the extra
declaration of _genpd_reeval_performance_state() that bad. If two
routines are always going to get called together it is worth calling
the second one from the first one for me.

But anyway, I am fine with it if you are. Please let me know.

> >  }
> >
> >  /**
> > @@ -332,7 +407,7 @@ int dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(struct device *dev, unsigned int state)
> >         prev = gpd_data->performance_state;
> >         gpd_data->performance_state = state;
> >
> > -       ret = _genpd_reeval_performance_state(genpd, state);
> > +       ret = _genpd_reeval_performance_state(genpd, state, 0);
> >         if (ret)
> >                 gpd_data->performance_state = prev;
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/pm_domain.h b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> > index 9ad101362aef..dd364abb649a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> > @@ -136,6 +136,10 @@ struct gpd_link {
> >         struct list_head master_node;
> >         struct generic_pm_domain *slave;
> >         struct list_head slave_node;
> > +
> > +       /* Sub-domain's per-master domain performance state */
> > +       unsigned int performance_state;
> > +       unsigned int prev_performance_state;
> 
> Probably a leftover from the earlier versions, please remove.

No, these are still getting used.

-- 
viresh