linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix per-policy boost behavior

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: <20240228063511.rcntpb3dhbbhf7fb@vireshk-i7>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:05:11 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>
Cc: dietmar.eggemann@....com, marcan@...can.st, sven@...npeter.dev,
	alyssa@...enzweig.io, rafael@...nel.org, xuwei5@...ilicon.com,
	zhanjie9@...ilicon.com, sudeep.holla@....com,
	cristian.marussi@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, quic_rgottimu@...cinc.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, asahi@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix per-policy boost behavior

On 28-02-24, 10:44, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> In the existing code, per-policy flags doesn't have any impact i.e.
> if cpufreq_driver boost is enabled and one or more of the per-policy
> boost is disabled, the cpufreq driver will behave as if boost is
> enabled.

I see. Good catch. The first patch is fine, just explain the problem
properly and mention that no one is checking the policy->boost_enabled
field. It is never read.

> I had to update the policy->boost_enabled value because we seem
> to allow enabling cpufreq_driver.boost_enabled from the driver, but I
> can drop that because it was just for book keeping.

So with cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled at init time, policy's
boost_enabled must be set too. Do that in the core during
initialization of the policy instead.

> I didn't want
> to include redundant info from another mail thread that I referenced in
> the cover letter, but will add more info in the re-spin.

You don't have to, but you need to explain the exact problem in a bit
more detail since it wasn't obvious here.

-- 
viresh