linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 6/6] ARM: sched: clear SD_SHARE

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: <5093A7C5.9080605@ti.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:30:21 +0530
From:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
	<mingo@...hat.com>, <pjt@...gle.com>, <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC 6/6] ARM: sched: clear SD_SHARE_POWERLINE

On Monday 29 October 2012 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 24 October 2012 17:21, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com> wrote:
>> On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>
>>> The ARM platforms take advantage of packing small tasks on few cores.
>>> This is true even when the cores of a cluster can't be powergated
>>> independently.
>>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
>>> ---
>>>    arch/arm/kernel/topology.c |    5 +++++
>>>    1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
>>> index 26c12c6..00511d0 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
>>> @@ -226,6 +226,11 @@ static inline void update_cpu_power(unsigned int
>>> cpuid, unsigned int mpidr) {}
>>>     */
>>>    struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
>>>
>>> +int arch_sd_share_power_line(void)
>>> +{
>>> +       return 0*SD_SHARE_POWERLINE;
>>> +}
>>
>>
>> Making this selection of policy based on sched domain will better. Just
>> gives the flexibility to choose a separate scheme for big and little
>> systems which will be very convenient.
>
> I agree that it would be more flexible to be able to set it for each level
>
Will you be addressing that in next version then ?

Regards
santosh

--
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/