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]

Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 19:57:47 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 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()

Hi Tejun,

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 9:53 PM Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

Please feel free to pick up the $subject patch (with my ACK).

As for the [2/2], I don't think I'm sufficiently familiar with the
scx_* stuff to make any comments on it, either way.

Cheers, Rafael