linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: CPPC: Dont read counters for idle CPUs

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: <CAFivqm+gBBSCoVUxmeatu8TjwunzBtfjeDMNBL0JCsPhkFEg5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 17:19:19 -0700
From: Prashant Malani <pmalani@...gle.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	Jie Zhan <zhanjie9@...ilicon.com>, Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>, 
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, 
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	"open list:CPU FREQUENCY SCALING FRAMEWORK" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, 
	z00813676 <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>, sudeep.holla@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: CPPC: Dont read counters for idle CPUs

On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 at 21:43, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 31-07-25, 22:23, Beata Michalska wrote:
> > The reason why I mentioned that is that getting current frequency
> > for an idle CPU seems like smth we could potentially optimise away and save some
> > cycles (fixing other problems on the way, like this one).
>
> I agree with that idea, just that the cpufreq core may not be the right place
> for that. Doing that in the driver should be fine.
>
> > But if that's undesired for any reason, it's perfectly fine to stay with
>

So, do we have consensus that the idle check is acceptable as proposed?
(Just want to make sure this thread doesn't get lost given another thread
has forked off in this conversation).

Best regards,

-- 
-Prashant