linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] arch_topology: Relocate cpu

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: <20250507211841.GA28763@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 14:18:41 -0700
From: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
To: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arch_topology: Relocate cpu_scale to topology.[h|c]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 05:31:01PM +0100, Christian Loehle wrote:
> On 4/19/25 03:55, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > arch_topology.c provides functionality to parse and scale CPU capacity. It
> > also provides a corresponding sysfs interface. Some architectures parse
> > and scale CPU capacity differently as per their own needs. On Intel
> > processors, for instance, it is responsibility of the Intel P-state driver.
> > 
> > Relocate the implementation of that interface to a common location in
> > topology.c. Architectures can use the interface and populate it using their
> > own mechanisms.
> > 
> > An alternative approach would be to compile arch_topology.c even if not
> > needed only to get this interface. This approach would create duplicated
> > and conflicting functionality and data structures.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> Maybe an FYI for the non-x86 folks, this doesn't break anything on the
> usual arm64 setup:
> Tested-by: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>

Thanks for testing these patches!