linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] [idled]: Idle Cycle Injector for power capping

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]

Message-ID: <h2u4352991a1004191020q8200399oc8e9f7d8dee934bf@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:20:01 -0700
From:	Salman Qazi <sqazi@...gle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, arjan@...radead.org,
	csadler@...gle.com, ranjitm@...gle.com, kenchen@...gle.com,
	dawnchen@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] [idled]: Idle Cycle Injector for power capping

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 17:08 -0700, Salman wrote:
>> As we discussed earlier this year, Google has an implementation that it
>> would like to share.  I have finally gotten around to porting it to
>> v2.6.33 and cleaning up the interfaces.  It is provided in the following
>> messages for your review.  I realize that when we first discussed this
>> idea, a lot of ideas were presented for enhancing it.  Thanks alot for
>> your suggestions.  I haven't gotten around to implementing any of them.
>
> .33 is way too old to submit patches against.

Will bump up the version when I refresh the change.

>
> That said, I really really dislike this approach, I would much rather
> see it tie in with power aware scheduling.

I think I can see your point:  there is potentially better information
about the power consumption of the CPU beyond the time it was busy.
But please clarify: is your complaint the lack of use of this
information or are you arguing for a deeper integration into the
scheduler (I.e. implementing it as part of the scheduler rather than
an independent thread) or both?

>
>
--
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/