linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] cpufreq: Migrate users of policy notifiers to QoS requests

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: <20190716101416.ntk353cfnrcykoek@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:44:16 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        Erik Schmauss <erik.schmauss@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        "open list:ACPI COMPONENT ARCHITECTURE (ACPICA)" <devel@...ica.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:FRAMEBUFFER LAYER" <linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] cpufreq: Migrate users of policy notifiers to QoS
 requests

On 16-07-19, 12:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:49 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Now that cpufreq core supports taking QoS requests for min/max cpu
> > frequencies, lets migrate rest of the users to using them instead of the
> > policy notifiers.
> 
> Technically, this still is linux-next only. :-)

True :)

> > The CPUFREQ_NOTIFY and CPUFREQ_ADJUST events of the policy notifiers are
> > removed as a result, but we have to add CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY and
> > CPUFREQ_REMOVE_POLICY events to it for the acpi stuff specifically. So
> > the policy notifiers aren't completely removed.
> 
> That's not entirely accurate, because arch_topology is going to use
> CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY now too.

Yeah, I thought about that while writing this patchset and
coverletter. But had it not been required for ACPI, I would have done
it differently for the arch-topology code. Maybe direct calling of
arch-topology routine from cpufreq core. I wanted to get rid of the
policy notifiers completely but I couldn't find a better way of doing
it for ACPI stuff.

> > Boot tested on my x86 PC and ARM hikey board. Nothing looked broken :)
> >
> > This has already gone through build bot for a few days now.
> 
> So I'd prefer patches [5-8] to go right after the first one and then
> do the cleanups on top of that, as somebody may want to backport the
> essential changes without the cleanups.

In the exceptional case where nobody finds anything wrong with the
patches (highly unlikely), do you want me to resend with reordering or
you can reorder them while applying? There are no dependencies between
those patches anyway.

--
viresh