linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] ACPI: Do cpufreq clamping for throttling per package v2

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120206175918.GN11715@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:59:18 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, lenb@...nel.org,
	linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] ACPI: Do cpufreq clamping for throttling per package v2

On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 04:31:06PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 08:17:11AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > +#define reduction_pctg(cpu) \
> > +	per_cpu(cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg, phys_package_first_cpu(cpu))
> 
> I don't like using percentages here - we end up with the potential for

The code was using percentages before, i merely moved the accounting
to be per package. I don't disagree with changing them, but it 
should be probably a separate patch.

-Andi
--
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/