linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 4/5] cpufreq: Register notifiers with the PM QoS framework

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 25 Feb 2019 14:39:55 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, mka@...omium.org,
        juri.lelli@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/5] cpufreq: Register notifiers with the PM QoS
 framework

On 25-02-19, 08:58, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 02/25/19 10:01, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > +	min = dev_pm_qos_read_value(cpu_dev, DEV_PM_QOS_MIN_FREQUENCY);
> > > > +	max = dev_pm_qos_read_value(cpu_dev, DEV_PM_QOS_MAX_FREQUENCY);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (min > new_policy->min)
> > > > +		new_policy->min = min;
> > > > +	if (max < new_policy->max)
> > > > +		new_policy->max = max;

> And this is why we need to check here if the PM QoS value doesn't conflict with
> the current min/max, right? Until the current notifier code is removed they
> could trip over each others.

No. The above if/else block is already removed as part of patch 5/5. It was
required because of conflict between userspace specific min/max and qos min/max,
which are migrated to use qos by patc 5/5.

The cpufreq notifier mechanism already lets users play with min/max and that is
already safe from conflicts.

> It would be nice to add a comment here about PM QoS managing and remembering
> values

I am not sure if that would add any value. Some documentation update may be
useful for people looking for details though, that I shall do after all the
changes get in and things become a bit stable.

> and that we need to be careful that both mechanisms don't trip over
> each others until this transient period is over.

The second mechanism will die very very soon once this is merged, migrating them
shouldn't be a big challenge AFAICT. I didn't attempt that because I didn't
wanted to waste time updating things in case this version also doesn't make
sense to others.

> I have a nit too. It would be nice to explicitly state this is
> CPU_{MIN,MAX}_FREQUENCY. I can see someone else adding {MIN,MAX}_FREQUENCY for
> something elsee (memory maybe?)

This is not CPU specific, but any device. The same interface shall be used by
devfreq as well, who wanted to use freq-constraints initially.

> Although I looked at the previous series briefly, but this one looks more
> compact and easier to follow, so +1 for that.

Thanks for looking into this Qais.

-- 
viresh