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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20071011150804.GA7293@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 08:08:04 -0700 From: Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: arjan@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, mark.gross@...el.com Subject: Re: pm qos infrastructure and interface On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 10:17:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:51:39 -0700 Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com> wrote: > > > The following patch is a generalization of the latency.c implementation > > done by Arjan last year. It provides infrastructure for more than one > > parameter, and exposes a user mode interface for processes to register > > pm_qos expectations of processes. > > > > > > This interface provides a kernel and user mode interface for registering > > performance expectations by drivers, subsystems and user space > > applications on one of the parameters. > > > > Currently we have {cpu_dma_latency, network_latency, network_throughput} > > as the initial set of pm_qos parameters. > > > > The infrastructure exposes multiple misc device nodes one per > > implemented parameter. The set of parameters implement is defined by > > pm_qos_power_init() and pm_qos_params.h. This is done because having > > the available parameters being runtime configurable or changeable from a > > driver was seen as too easy to abuse. > > I'm a bit surprised that this change appears to have no configurability. > If one has set CONFIG_PM=n (for example), shouldn't it all go away? We considered that as an option but as latency.c didn't offer it I didn't either. I could see the user mode interface portion of the implementation be made as a compile time option but the kernel infrastructure will continue to be needed by at least cpu-idel, pcm_native.c and ipw2100. You know it could make sense to have the user mode interface part of the patch as configurable or a build time dependent of sysfs and misc device support for the linux-tiny guys. Is it practical to make a linux-tiny without the sysfs infrastructure needed to make a misc device? I'll ask on the linux-tiny list. --mgross - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists