linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq_schedutil: Refactor sugov_cpu_is

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: <ZnM3J7pvg6fyksby@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:53:11 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, void@...ifault.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
	mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	David Vernet <dvernet@...a.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq_schedutil: Refactor sugov_cpu_is_busy()

Hello, Rafael.

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 08:45:42PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 5:13 AM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > sugov_cpu_is_busy() is used to avoid decreasing performance level while the
> > CPU is busy and called by sugov_update_single_freq() and
> > sugov_update_single_perf(). Both callers repeat the same pattern to first
> > test for uclamp and then the business. Let's refactor so that the tests
> > aren't repeated.
> >
> > The new helper is named sugov_hold_freq() and tests both the uclamp
> > exception and CPU business. No functional changes. This will make adding
> > more exception conditions easier.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> > Reviewed-by: David Vernet <dvernet@...a.com>
> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> 
> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>
> 
> for this particular change.

If the cpufreq_schedutil part of the second patch looks good to you, would
it be okay to route together with this patch through the sched_ext tree?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun