linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] drivers: Frequency constraint infrastructure

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, 30 Jan 2019 10:55:11 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] drivers: Frequency constraint infrastructure

On 17-01-19, 14:16, Juri Lelli wrote:
> I was also wondering how this new framework is dealing with
> constraints/request imposed/generated by the scheduler and related
> interfaces (thinking about schedutil and Patrick's util_clamp).

I am not very sure about what constraints are imposed by schedutil or
util-clamp stuff that may not work well with this stuff.

As you are already aware of it, this series isn't doing anything new
as we already have thermal/user constraints available in kernel. I am
just trying to implement a better way to present those to the cpufreq
core.

-- 
viresh