linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] PM / EM: Expose perf domain struct

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: <20190515105723.3ltui3l75hbuskmk@queper01-lin>
Date:   Wed, 15 May 2019 11:57:24 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, edubezval@...il.com,
        rui.zhang@...el.com, javi.merino@...nel.org,
        amit.kachhap@...il.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, will.deacon@....com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        ionela.voinescu@....com, mka@...omium.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] PM / EM: Expose perf domain struct

On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 12:54:10 (+0200), Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 15/05/2019 12:40, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 15:52:00 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> On 15-05-19, 12:16, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>> Viresh what do you think ?
> >>
> >> I agree with your last suggestions. They do make sense.
> > 
> > Good :-)
> > 
> > So, FWIW, the below compiles w/ or w/o THERMAL_GOV_POWER_ALLOCATOR. I'll
> > test it and clean it up some more and put it as patch 1 in the series if
> > that's OK.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Quentin
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> > index f7c1f49ec87f..ee431848ef71 100644
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> > @@ -58,7 +58,9 @@
> >   */
> >  struct freq_table {
> >         u32 frequency;
> 
> I suspect we will have a problem here as cpufreq_set_cur_state uses the
> frequency and when switching to EM, we will still need a freq table.

Indeed, I'll need a bit of ifdefery in the get_state_freq() function
introduced in patch 3, but nothing too horrible I hope.

Thanks,
Quentin