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: <CAJZ5v0jvYBUPjSmXas+S8rOG2WAb5u7rk92Gbu1s7A=tJr4VPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 21:19:06 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Prashant Malani <pmalani@...gle.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, 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 Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 8:43 PM Prashant Malani <pmalani@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 11 11:35, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 06-08-25, 17:19, Prashant Malani wrote:
> > > 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).
> >
> > I don't have any objections to this or a better solution to this.
>
> Thanks Viresh! Beata, can we kindly move ahead with the idle
> optimization (which is this series), while we continue discussions for
> the "under load" scenarios on the other thread?

I need some more time, please?

This problem is similar (if not analogous) to what happens on x86 and
that is not handled in the cpuidle core.

Thanks!