linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/msm/gpu: Respect PM QoS constraints

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: <CAD=FV=UraStftJyUDHp5=iKoh4tnCQiTgBZJBNF3-q=HDZUPZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Nov 2021 16:21:45 -0800
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Cc:     dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
        Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/msm/gpu: Respect PM QoS constraints

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 2:47 PM Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com> wrote:
>
> +void msm_devfreq_boost(struct msm_gpu *gpu, unsigned factor)
> +{
> +       struct msm_gpu_devfreq *df = &gpu->devfreq;
> +       unsigned long freq;
> +
> +       freq = get_freq(gpu);
> +       freq *= factor;
> +       freq /= HZ_PER_KHZ;

Should it do the divide first? I don't know for sure, but it feels
like GPU frequency could conceivably be near-ish the u32 overflow? (~4
GHz). Better to be safe and do the / 1000 first?


> @@ -201,26 +217,14 @@ static void msm_devfreq_idle_work(struct kthread_work *work)
>         struct msm_gpu_devfreq *df = container_of(work,
>                         struct msm_gpu_devfreq, idle_work.work);
>         struct msm_gpu *gpu = container_of(df, struct msm_gpu, devfreq);
> -       unsigned long idle_freq, target_freq = 0;
>
>         if (!df->devfreq)
>                 return;

Why does the msm_devfreq_idle_work() need a check for "!df->devfreq"
but the boost work doesn't? Maybe you don't need it anymore now that
you're not reaching into the mutex? ...or maybe the boost work does
need it?

...and if "df->devfreq" is NULL then doesn't it mean that
msm_hrtimer_work_init() was never called? That seems bad...


-Doug