linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_boost_trigger

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: <uehurs7co55efvav7actgvfridw4ekieg5lldcldx4cunjhsqs@bk45k47mlfmy>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 12:16:06 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "zhenglifeng (A)" <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, 
	zhanjie9@...ilicon.com, lihuisong@...wei.com, yubowen8@...wei.com, 
	zhangpengjie2@...wei.com, wangzhi12@...wei.com, linhongye@...artners.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_boost_trigger_state()
 optimization

On 02-12-25, 14:24, zhenglifeng (A) wrote:
> On 2025/12/2 12:58, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 02-12-25, 09:32, zhenglifeng (A) wrote:
> >> On 2025/12/1 11:42, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >>> On 28-11-25, 17:13, Lifeng Zheng wrote:
> >>>> Simplify the error handling branch code in cpufreq_boost_trigger_state().
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 11 +++--------
> >>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >>>> index a4399e5490da..a725747572c9 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> >>>> @@ -2824,18 +2824,13 @@ static int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(int state)
> >>>>  
> >>>>  		ret = policy_set_boost(policy, state);
> >>>>  		if (ret)
> >>>> -			goto err_reset_state;
> >>>> +			break;
> >>>>  	}
> >>>>  
> >>>> -	if (ret)
> >>>> -		goto err_reset_state;
> >>>> -
> >>>>  	cpus_read_unlock();
> >>>>  
> >>>> -	return 0;
> >>>> -
> >>>> -err_reset_state:
> >>>> -	cpus_read_unlock();
> >>>> +	if (!ret)
> >>>
> >>> Maybe we can make this `if (likely(!ret))`
> >>
> >> For the platforms which are not boost supported, this will never be
> >> matched. Is `likely` OK in this situation?
> > 
> > Ideally they won't have a `boost` file in sysfs, and if they have it, we don't
> > really need to optimize the failure case.
> 
> I see. Then I think the `if (ret)` in the loop should be
> `if (unlikely(ret))` too.

That can be done too.

-- 
viresh