linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 10/10] arch_topology: Start Energy Aware Scheduling

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, 19 Jun 2018 11:47:14 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To:     Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
Cc:     Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        morten.rasmussen@....com, chris.redpath@....com,
        patrick.bellasi@....com, valentin.schneider@....com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, thara.gopinath@...aro.org,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, tkjos@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com,
        smuckle@...gle.com, adharmap@...cinc.com, skannan@...cinc.com,
        edubezval@...il.com, srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com,
        currojerez@...eup.net, javi.merino@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 10/10] arch_topology: Start Energy Aware Scheduling

On 19/06/18 10:40, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Hi Pavan,
> 
> On Tuesday 19 Jun 2018 at 14:48:41 (+0530), Pavan Kondeti wrote:

[...]

> > There seems to be a sysfs interface exposed by this driver to change cpu_scale.
> > Should we worry about it? I don't know what is the usecase for changing the
> > cpu_scale from user space.
> 
> This is something I've been wondering as well. TBH, I'm not sure what to
> do in this case. And I'm not sure to know what is the use-case either.
> Debugging purpose I assume ?
> 
> Juri, did you have a specific use-case for this feature when the
> arch_topology driver was first introduced ? Or was it just to align
> with the existing arm/arm64 code ?

It was requested (IIRC) because DT might have bogus values and not be
easily modifiable. So, this is another way to get things right for your
platform at runtime.