linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] cpuidle: allow per cpu latencies

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: <20120419102357.GJ514@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:23:57 +0300
From:	Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
To:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
CC:	"Shilimkar, Santosh" <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Trinabh Gupta <g.trinabh@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Deepthi Dharwar <deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rob Lee <rob.lee@...aro.org>,
	Ricardo Salveti <ricardo.salveti@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cpuidle: allow per cpu latencies

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:14:27AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 04/16/2012 05:34 PM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe we also want to make the 'disabled' flag per CPU then or provide some
> >> other way the number of C states can be different per CPU?
> >
> > What do you think about this? Do we also want to make the disabled flag per
> > CPU? Or how should we deal with a different number of C states per CPU?
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> yes, that could makes sense. But in most of the architecture, this is 
> not needed, so duplicating the state's array and latencies is unneeded 
> memory consumption.
> 
> Maybe we can look for a COW approach, similar to what is done for the 
> nsproxy structure, no ?
> 

That could be easily solved by just having a pointer to the state table in the
per CPU datastructure I think?


Cheers,

Peter.
--
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/