linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 02/23] PM: EM: Refactor em_cpufreq_update

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: <453d5cf0-9b74-43ff-bcd4-a6fdd7796056@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:56:42 +0000
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.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 v6 02/23] PM: EM: Refactor
 em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies() arguments

Hi Rafael,

On 1/4/24 19:07, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The word "refactor" appears to be quite loaded in your patch
> descriptions, but it is not always the best one to use IMV.

Fair enough, I'll change those patches according to your comments.

> 
> For instance, this patch simply extends the argument list of
> em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(), so I would say just that in the
> subject: "Extend em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies() argument list"
> 
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 6:14 PM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>>
>> In order to prepare the code for the modifiable EM perf_state table,
>> refactor existing function em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies().
> 
> "make em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies() take a pointer to the EM table
> as its second argument and modify it to use that new argument instead
> of the "table" member of dev->em_pd"
> 
> or something like this.

I think I got the point, will change it.

> 
>> The function now takes the ptr to the EM table as its argument.
>>
>> No functional impact.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
>> ---
>>   kernel/power/energy_model.c | 8 +++-----
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/power/energy_model.c b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
>> index 8b9dd4a39f63..42486674b834 100644
>> --- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c
>> +++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
>> @@ -237,10 +237,10 @@ static int em_create_pd(struct device *dev, int nr_states,
>>          return 0;
>>   }
>>
>> -static void em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(struct device *dev)
>> +static void
>> +em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_state *table)
>>   {
>>          struct em_perf_domain *pd = dev->em_pd;
>> -       struct em_perf_state *table;
>>          struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>>          int found = 0;
>>          int i;
>> @@ -254,8 +254,6 @@ static void em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(struct device *dev)
>>                  return;
>>          }
>>
>> -       table = pd->table;
>> -
>>          for (i = 0; i < pd->nr_perf_states; i++) {
>>                  if (!(table[i].flags & EM_PERF_STATE_INEFFICIENT))
>>                          continue;
>> @@ -397,7 +395,7 @@ int em_dev_register_perf_domain(struct device *dev, unsigned int nr_states,
>>
>>          dev->em_pd->flags |= flags;
>>
>> -       em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(dev);
>> +       em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(dev, dev->em_pd->table);
>>
>>          em_debug_create_pd(dev);
>>          dev_info(dev, "EM: created perf domain\n");
>> --
> 
> The code change itself LGTM.

Thanks