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]

Message-ID: <20190722064921.qrjslrdnbknd5j7b@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:19:21 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>
Cc:     rjw@...ysocki.net, joel@...lfernandes.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Don't set next_freq to
 UINT_MAX"

On 18-07-19, 08:46, Doug Smythies wrote:
> On 2019.07.18 03:28 Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > 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 ?
> 
> The patch eliminates the "flag", UNIT_MAX, and it's related comment,
> that was used to indicate if it was a limit change that causes the
> subsequent execution of sugov_update_single.

I think I may have understood the root cause. Please try the patch I just sent
as reply to this thread. Thanks.

-- 
viresh