linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 09/10] cpufreq: Introduce cpufreq_policy

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: <20250401085123.e6cr7nkmzoqzuptj@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 14:21:23 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 09/10] cpufreq: Introduce cpufreq_policy_refresh()

On 28-03-25, 21:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> 
> Since cpufreq_update_limits() obtains a cpufreq policy pointer for the
> given CPU and reference counts the object pointed to by it, calling
> cpufreq_update_policy() from cpufreq_update_limits() is somewhat
> wasteful because that function calls cpufreq_cpu_get() on the same
> CPU again.
> 
> To avoid that unnecessary overhead, move the part of the code running
> under the policy rwsem from cpufreq_update_policy() to a new function
> called cpufreq_policy_refresh() and invoke that new function from
> both cpufreq_update_policy() and cpufreq_update_limits().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c |   31 ++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>

-- 
viresh