linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: longhaul: Set transition_delay

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, 7 Dec 2017 15:03:50 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Meelis Roos <mroos@...ux.ee>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        "4 . 14+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: longhaul: Set transition_delay_us to 20 ms

On 07-12-17, 09:26, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > On 06-12-17, 20:21, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > > 30000 was not reliable.
> > > 
> > > I created root cron job
> > > @reboot sleep 120; /sbin/reboot
> > > 
> > > and by the evening it was dead again.
> > > 
> > > Will try 50000 tomorrow.
> > 
> > Lets make it similar to what it was before my original patch modified
> > it, to avoid all corner cases.
> > 
> > Please test against 200 ms, 200000 value here.
> 
> Sorry, I confused 200000 vs 20000, will test 200000.
> 
> But 200000 was the value before.

It was value of a different variable (transition_latency) at that
time. Just set transition_delay_us in my recent patch as 200,000 and
apply that over mainline.

I will resend the patch in the mean time as well.

> Shall I test 200000 with or without 
> the other limiting patch?

-- 
viresh