linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 19 Jun 2019 11:15:35 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Qais.Yousef@....com, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 4/5] cpufreq: Register notifiers with the PM QoS framework

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:39 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 19-06-19, 00:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > In patch [3/5] you could point notifiers for both min and max freq to the same
> > notifier head.   Both of your notifiers end up calling cpufreq_update_policy()
> > anyway.
>
> I tried it and the changes in qos.c file look fine. But I don't like at all how
> cpufreq.c looks now. We only register for min-freq notifier now and that takes
> care of max as well. What could have been better is if we could have registered
> a freq-notifier instead of min/max, which isn't possible as well because of how
> qos framework works.
>
> Honestly, the cpufreq changes look hacky to me :(
>
> What do you say.

OK, leave it as is.  That's not a big deal.

It is slightly awkward, but oh well.