linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Don't set next_freq to UINT

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]

Date:   Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:58:15 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Doug Smythies <doug.smythies@...il.com>
Cc:     rjw@...ysocki.net, joel@...lfernandes.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        dsmythies@...us.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Don't set next_freq to
 UINT_MAX"

On 17-07-19, 23:26, Doug Smythies wrote:
> This reverts commit ecd2884291261e3fddbc7651ee11a20d596bb514.
> 
> The commit caused a regression whereby reducing the maximum
> CPU clock frequency is ineffective while busy, and the CPU
> clock remains unchanged. Once the system has experienced
> some idle time, the new limit is implemented.

Can you explain why this patch caused that issue ? I am sorry but I couldn't
understand it from your email. How are we trying to reduce the frequency? Is
clk_set_rate() getting called with that finally and not working ?

> A consequence is that any thermal throttling monitoring
> and control based on max freq limits fail to respond
> in a timely manor, if at all, to a thermal temperature
> trip on a busy system.

-- 
viresh