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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <9cc4e465-9979-e4cc-3d2d-84cca307f19e@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 15:39:34 +0530
From: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
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 2/28/24 12:05, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 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.

ack, will make these changes in the next re-spin.

-Sibi

>