linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 4/4] cpufreq: CPPC: Add support for frequency invariance

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: <20210624094812.GA6095@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 10:48:12 +0100
From:   Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@...cinc.com>,
        linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 4/4] cpufreq: CPPC: Add support for frequency
 invariance

Hey,

On Monday 21 Jun 2021 at 14:49:37 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> The Frequency Invariance Engine (FIE) is providing a frequency scaling
> correction factor that helps achieve more accurate load-tracking.
[..]
> +static void cppc_cpufreq_cpu_fie_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> +{
> +	struct cppc_freq_invariance *cppc_fi;
> +	int cpu;
> +
> +	if (cppc_cpufreq_driver.get == hisi_cppc_cpufreq_get_rate)
> +		return;
> +
> +	/* policy->cpus will be empty here, use related_cpus instead */
> +	topology_clear_scale_freq_source(SCALE_FREQ_SOURCE_CPPC, policy->related_cpus);
> +
> +	for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->related_cpus) {
> +		cppc_fi = &per_cpu(cppc_freq_inv, cpu);

Do you think it might be worth having here something like:

		if (!cppc_fi->cpu_data)
			continue;

This would be to protect against cases where the platform does not boot
with all CPUs or the module is loaded after some have already been
offlined. Unlikely, but..

> +		irq_work_sync(&cppc_fi->irq_work);
> +		kthread_cancel_work_sync(&cppc_fi->work);
> +	}
> +}

The rest of the code is almost the same as the original, so that is all
from me :).

Thanks,
Ionela.