linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] Package Level Thermal Control and Power Limit Notification: pkgtemp doc

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: <20100820103356.01c9907f@hyperion.delvare>
Date:	Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:33:56 +0200
From:	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To:	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc:	Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@...csson.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Wan, Huaxu" <huaxu.wan@...el.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"lm-sensors@...sensors.org" <lm-sensors@...sensors.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] Package Level Thermal Control and Power Limit
 Notification: pkgtemp doc

Fenghua,

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:51:20 -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 09:27:19AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > I might spend some time rewriting the coretemp driver as described above,
> > unless someone else picks it up, and unless there is opposition. 
> > Obviously, that won't include the package sensor since there is now
> > a separate driver for it.
>
> I agree with this method too. On a multiple socket system, the current coretemp
> output will cause confusion since it only outputs core# without package#.

Good point.

> If it's ok for you, I can rewrite this part to have hwmon device per CPU with
> both core and package thermal info and send out RFC patch soon.

Yes, please! If you have time to work on this, it would be very great.
I am really curious to see how the driver would look like if we go with
this approach. I can test the code, too (although I understand you
won't have any difficulties getting your hands on recent Intel
systems ;)

Also see my reply in the other thread about the handling of removed
siblings. I suspect it will be very easy to add to the new design.

Side question: is it safe to assume a maximum of 2 siblings per core on
Intel x86 CPUs?

-- 
Jean Delvare
--
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/