linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] Experimental patchset for CPPC

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]

Date:	Thu, 14 Aug 2014 22:51:43 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
	mike.turquette@...aro.org, morten.rasmussen@....com,
	arjan@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...nel.org, len.brown@...el.com,
	rjw@...ysocki.net, linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org, arnd@...db.de,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Experimental patchset for CPPC

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 03:57:07PM -0400, Ashwin Chaugule wrote:
> 
> 
> What is CPPC:
> =============
> 
> CPPC is the new interface for CPU performance control between the OS and the
> platform defined in ACPI 5.0+. The interface is built on an abstract
> representation of CPU performance rather than raw frequency.  Basic operation
> consists of:

Why do we want this? Typically we've ignored ACPI and gone straight to
MSR access, intel_pstate and intel_idle were created especially to avoid
ACPI, so why return to it.

Also, the whole interface sounds like trainwreck (one would not expect
anything else from ACPI).

So _why_?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped