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:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:33:55 +0100
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        Kevin Wangtao <kevin.wangtao@...aro.org>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        Amit Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
        viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
        "open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Introduce the cpu idle
 cooling driver

On 31/01/2018 10:01, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> On 23 January 2018 at 16:34, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:

[ ... ] (please trim :)

>> +               /*
>> +                * Each cooling device is per package. Each package
>> +                * has a set of cpus where the physical number is
>> +                * duplicate in the kernel namespace. We need a way to
>> +                * address the waitq[] and tsk[] arrays with index
>> +                * which are not Linux cpu numbered.
>> +                *
>> +                * One solution is to use the
>> +                * topology_core_id(cpu). Other solution is to use the
>> +                * modulo.
>> +                *
>> +                * eg. 2 x cluster - 4 cores.
>> +                *
>> +                * Physical numbering -> Linux numbering -> % nr_cpus
>> +                *
>> +                * Pkg0 - Cpu0 -> 0 -> 0
>> +                * Pkg0 - Cpu1 -> 1 -> 1
>> +                * Pkg0 - Cpu2 -> 2 -> 2
>> +                * Pkg0 - Cpu3 -> 3 -> 3
>> +                *
>> +                * Pkg1 - Cpu0 -> 4 -> 0
>> +                * Pkg1 - Cpu1 -> 5 -> 1
>> +                * Pkg1 - Cpu2 -> 6 -> 2
>> +                * Pkg1 - Cpu3 -> 7 -> 3
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that the assumption above for the CPU numbering is safe.
> Can't you use a per cpu structure to point to resources that are per
> cpu instead ? so you will not have to rely on CPU ordering

Can you elaborate ? I don't get the part with the percpu structure.


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ