linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

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, 5 Dec 2017 16:26:49 +0100
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
        tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it, bristot@...hat.com,
        mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, tkjos@...roid.com, joelaf@...gle.com,
        morten.rasmussen@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        alessio.balsini@....com, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization
 signals

Hi,

On 05/12/17 15:17, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> Hi Juri,
> 
> On 04-Dec 11:23, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
> > 
> > To be able to treat utilization signals of different scheduling classes
> > in different ways (e.g., CFS signal might be stale while DEADLINE signal
> > is never stale by design) we need to split sugov_cpu::util signal in two:
> > util_cfs and util_dl.
> > 
> > This patch does that by also changing sugov_get_util() parameter list.
> > After this change, aggregation of the different signals has to be performed
> > by sugov_get_util() users (so that they can decide what to do with the
> > different signals).
> 
> Did not tried myself, but to me it would be nice to have this patch
> squashed with the first one of this series. After all, looking at this
> one it seems that [RFC PATH 1/8] is just adding util_dl but it's not
> really using it the proper way.
> 
> Here instead is where you better introduce two separate signals,
> tracked by struct sugov_cpu, and properly aggregate them.
> 
> But perhaps that's just me being picky ;-)
> 

Sure. It looked too invasive as a single patch to me. Also, I was trying
to follow the "one change one patch" rule. So, I'd keep them separate.
What others think?

Best,

- Juri