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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:23:10 +0100
From:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
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 2 November 2012 12:00, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com> wrote:
> 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 ?

Hi Santosh,

yes, I will try to address this point for the next version.

Vincent

>
> 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/