linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Saving power by cpu evacuation sched_max_capacity

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 May 2009 17:10:54 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Vatsa <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
	Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arun Bharadwaj <arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] Saving power by cpu evacuation sched_max_capacity_pct=n

> > Yes that's fine and common, but you actually need to save power for this,
> > which throttling doesn't do.
> > 
> > My understanding this work is a extension of the existing
> > sched_mc_power_savings features that tries to be optionally more 
> > aggressive to keep complete package idle so that package level
> > power saving kicks in.
> > 
> > I'm just requesting that they don't call that throttling.
> 
> Ah no, this work differs in that regard in that it actually 'generates'
> idle time, instead of optimizing idle time.

That is what i meant with "more aggressive to keep complete packages idle"
above.

> 
> Therefore it takes actual cpu time away from real work, which is
> throttling. Granted, one could call it limiting or similar, but
> throttling is a correct name.

That will be always ongoing confusion with the existing established
term. 

If you really need to call it throttling use "scheduler throttling"
or something like that, but a different word would be better.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/