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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:17:44 +0000
From:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.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 13, 2012 at 06:30:33PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> On 02/06/2012 11:31 AM, 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 
> > several percentages to end up mapping to the same P state.
> 
> 
> Does it matter?

If you step through multiple percentages that map to the same P state, 
yes. On the other hand, re-reading the specification, it seems that this 
is the behaviour envisaged in the polling equation. I guess we'll stick 
with that.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
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/