linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / EM: and devices to Energy Model

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: <20200121100854.GB157387@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 10:08:54 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-imx@....com, Morten.Rasmussen@....com, Chris.Redpath@....com,
        ionela.voinescu@....com, javi.merino@....com,
        cw00.choi@...sung.com, b.zolnierkie@...sung.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        sudeep.holla@....com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, nm@...com,
        sboyd@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com, amit.kucheria@...durent.com,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        shawnguo@...nel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, khilman@...nel.org, agross@...nel.org,
        bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org,
        matthias.bgg@...il.com, steven.price@....com,
        tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com, alyssa.rosenzweig@...labora.com,
        airlied@...ux.ie, daniel@...ll.ch, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / EM: and devices to Energy Model

On Monday 20 Jan 2020 at 16:20:49 (+0000), Lukasz Luba wrote:
> On 1/20/20 3:28 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > Agreed, this looks a bit confusing. It should be trivial to make
> > em_dev_get() (or whatever we end up calling it) work for CPUs too,
> > though. And we could always have a em_cpu_get(int cpu) API that is a
> > basically a wrapper around em_dev_get() for convenience.
> 
> The problem not only here is that we have a CPU index 'int cpu'
> and if we ask for device like:
> 
> struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
> 
> It might be not the same device that was used during the
> registration, when we had i.e. 4 CPUs for the same policy:
>
> int cpu_id = cpumask_first(policy->cpus);
> struct device *cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu_id);
> em_register_perf_domain(cpu_dev, nr_opp, &em_cb);
> 
> That's why the em_cpu_get() is different than em_get_pd(), mainly by:
> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, em_span_cpus(em_pd)))
> 
> It won't be simple wrapper, let me think how it could be handled
> differently than it is now.

Right so I suppose the easiest solution would be to do the opposite of
my first suggestion. That is, make em_get_pd() call em_cpu_get() if the
device is a CPU device, or proceed to the PD list iteration for other
devices. And em_cpu_get() can remain as you originally suggested (that
is, iterate over the PDs and test the mask).

That should ensure em_get_pd() always works, em_cpu_get() is still there
handy for the scheduler and such, and the two EM lookup functions (for
CPUs or for devices) are kept cleanly separated.

Thoughts ?

Thanks,
Quentin