linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/8] cpuidle: make fast idle threshold tunable

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:   Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:12:32 +0800
From:   "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        peterz@...radead.org, len.brown@...el.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/8] cpuidle: make fast idle threshold tunable

On 2017/10/17 8:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2017 8:00:45 AM CEST Li, Aubrey wrote:
>> On 2017/10/14 8:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Saturday, September 30, 2017 9:20:32 AM CEST Aubrey Li wrote:
>>>> Add a knob to make fast idle threshold tunable
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
>>>
>>> I first of all am not sure about the need to add a tunable for this at all
>>> in the first place.
>>
>> Actually I think a fixed value(10) might be good enough but not quite sure
>> if there is a requirement to tune it for different scenario, for example even
>> if the predicted idle interval is 100x overhead, I still want a fast path for
>> a better benchmark score?
> 
> Any new tunables make the test matrix expand considerably, so it generally is
> better to err on the conservative side with adding them.
> 

Okay, it's fine for me without it. I'll remove in the next version.

Thanks,
-Aubrey