linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Tunable sched_mc_power

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1231480843.5570.36.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date:	Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:00:43 +0100
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Tunable sched_mc_power_savings=n

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 23:16 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:

> I agree with the 'visibility' to low level interface that you have
> pointed out.  It will be good to have flags showup at the low level
> interface, but do end users like system administrators would want to
> know and tune these flags?

IMHO there is no difference between these tunings and any other tuning,
the unwary admin can shoot himself in the foot in any number of ways.
The monotonic interface setting sensible flags is fine, but invisible
flags is not.

We may have to agree to disagree.

	-Mike

--
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/