linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 23/23] Documentation: EM: Update with runtime modification design

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: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 08:47:07 +0000
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 rafael@...nel.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com, rui.zhang@...el.com,
 amit.kucheria@...durent.com, amit.kachhap@...il.com,
 daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, len.brown@...el.com,
 pavel@....cz, mhiramat@...nel.org, qyousef@...alina.io, wvw@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 23/23] Documentation: EM: Update with runtime
 modification design



On 12/19/23 04:42, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 7:11 PM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:

[snip]

>> +
>> +  -> drivers/soc/example/example_em_mod.c
>> +
>> +  01   static void foo_get_new_em(struct device *dev)
>> +  02   {
>> +  03           struct em_perf_table __rcu *runtime_table;
>> +  04           struct em_perf_state *table, *new_table;
>> +  05           struct em_perf_domain *pd;
>> +  06           unsigned long freq;
>> +  07           int i, ret;
>> +  08
>> +  09           pd = em_pd_get(dev);
>> +  10           if (!pd)
>> +  11                   return;
>> +  12
>> +  13           runtime_table = em_allocate_table(pd);
>> +  14           if (!runtime_table)
>> +  15                   return;
>> +  16
>> +  17           new_table = runtime_table->state;
>> +  18
>> +  19           table = em_get_table(pd);
>> +  20           for (i = 0; i < pd->nr_perf_states; i++) {
>> +  21                   freq = table[i].frequency;
>> +  22                   foo_get_power_perf_values(dev, freq, &new_table[i]);
>> +  23           }
>> +  24           em_put_table();
>> +  25
>> +  26           /* Calculate 'cost' values for EAS */
>> +  27           ret = em_dev_compute_costs(dev, table, pd->nr_perf_states);
>> +  28           if (ret) {
>> +  29                   dev_warn(dev, "EM: compute costs failed %d\n", ret);
>> +  30                   em_free_table(runtime_table);
>> +  31                   return;
>> +  32           }
>> +  33
>> +  34           ret = em_dev_update_perf_domain(dev, runtime_table);
>> +  35           if (ret) {
>> +  36                   dev_warn(dev, "EM: update failed %d\n", ret);
>> +  37                   em_free_table(runtime_table);
>> +  38                   return;
>> +  39           }
>> +  40
>> +  41           ctx->runtime_table = runtime_table;
> 
> Because here is ctx, maybe the foo_get_new_em(struct device *dev)
> shoule be foo_get_new_em(struct foo_context *ctx)?

Make sense, I will change that bit. Thanks!