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:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 14:17:39 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 9/9] cpufreq: scmi: Use .register_em() callback

On Wednesday 11 Aug 2021 at 17:28:47 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Set the newly added .register_em() callback to register with the EM
> after the cpufreq policy is properly initialized.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> index 75f818d04b48..b916c9e22921 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -22,7 +22,9 @@
>  
>  struct scmi_data {
>  	int domain_id;
> +	int nr_opp;
>  	struct device *cpu_dev;
> +	cpumask_var_t opp_shared_cpus;

Can we use policy->related_cpus and friends directly in the callback
instead? That should simplify the patch a bit.

Also, we can probably afford calling dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count() from the
em_register callback as it is not a hot path, which would avoid wasting
some 'resident' memory here that is only used during init.

Thanks,
Quentin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ