Re: [PATCH] cpuidle:powernv: Make the snooze timeout dynamic.

[Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi Balbir,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the patch!
>
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 12:51:05AM +1000, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Gautham R. Shenoy
>
> [..snip..]
>> >
>> > +static u64 get_snooze_timeout(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>> > +                             struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
>> > +                             int index)
>> > +{
>> > +       int i;
>> > +
>> > +       if (unlikely(!snooze_timeout_en))
>> > +               return default_snooze_timeout;
>> > +
>> > +       for (i = index + 1; i < drv->state_count; i++) {
>> > +               struct cpuidle_state *s = &drv->states[i];
>> > +               struct cpuidle_state_usage *su = &dev->states_usage[i];
>> > +
>> > +               if (s->disabled || su->disable)
>> > +                       continue;
>> > +
>> > +               return s->target_residency * tb_ticks_per_usec;
>>
>> Can we ensure this is not prone to overflow?
>
> s->target_residency is an "unsigned int" so can take a maximum value
> of UINT_MAX. tb_ticks_per_usec is an "unsigned long" with a value in
> the range of 100-1000. The return value is a u64. The product of
> s->target_residency and tb_ticks_per_usec should be contained in u64.
>

Fair enough, looks reasonable to me

Balbir Singh.