linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Introduce target min and max frequency hints

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: <001b01d6b3df$21165940$63430bc0$@net>
Date:   Thu, 5 Nov 2020 17:49:53 -0800
From:   "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@...us.net>
To:     "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "'Linux PM'" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "'Viresh Kumar'" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        "'Srinivas Pandruvada'" <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        "'Zhang Rui'" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        "'LKML'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: Introduce target min and max frequency hints

Hi Rafael:

Thank you for this patch set.

I can not get the patch to apply.
I was trying on top on 5.10-rc2, and have been unable to determine
what other patches might need to be applied first.

On 2020.11.05 10:24 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

...

> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c             |    3 +++
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_performance.c |    4 ++++
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_powersave.c   |    4 ++++
>  include/linux/cpufreq.h               |   16 ++++++++++++++++

I do not understand why this part says to look for 16
differences, but I can only find 2.

>  4 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
> 
> Index: linux-pm/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> +++ linux-pm/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ struct cpufreq_policy {
> 
>  	unsigned int		min;    /* in kHz */
>  	unsigned int		max;    /* in kHz */
> +	unsigned int		target_min; /* in kHz */
> +	unsigned int		target_max; /* in kHz */
>  	unsigned int		cur;    /* in kHz, only needed if cpufreq
>  					 * governors are used */
>  	unsigned int		suspend_freq; /* freq to set during suspend */
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c

...

Anyway, I edited the patch, deleting the include/linux/cpufreq.h part,
then it applied, as did patch 2 of 2.
I edited include/linux/cpufreq.h manually.

Issues with the powersave governor reported in [1] and [2]
are fixed. Relevant part quoted and updated below:

> In early September Doug wrote:
>> powersave governor:
>> acpi-cpufreq: good
>> intel_cpufreq hwp: bad

Now good, with this patch set.

>> intel_cpufreq no hwp: good

...

> For the powersave governor, this is what we have now:
> 
> intel_cpufreq hwp == intel_pstate hwp
> intel_cpufreq no hwp == acpi-cpufreq == always minimum freq
> intel_pstate no hwp ~= acpi-cpufreq/ondemand

...

> My expectation was/is:
> 
> intel_cpufreq hwp == intel_cpufreq no hwp == acpi-cpufreq == always minimum freq

And this is what we now have, with this patch set.

> intel_pstate no hwp ~= acpi-cpufreq/ondemand
> intel_pstate hwp == Unique. Say, extremely course version of ondemand.

[1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=159769839401767&w=2
[2] https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=159943780220923&w=2

... Doug