linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

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: <5808458.pvV2iHpBWm@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:17:04 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
	robin.randhawa@....com, Steve.Bannister@....com,
	Liviu.Dudau@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

On Monday, February 04, 2013 05:08:50 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Currently, there can't be multiple instances of single governor_type. If we have
> a multi-package system, where we have multiple instances of struct policy (per
> package), we can't have multiple instances of same governor. i.e. We can't have
> multiple instances of ondemand governor for multiple packages.
> 
> Governors directory in sysfs is created at /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/
> governor-name/. Which again reflects that there can be only one instance of a
> governor_type in the system.
> 
> This is a bottleneck for multicluster system, where we want different packages
> to use same governor type, but with different tunables.
> 
> This patchset is inclined towards fixing this issue.
> 
> Viresh Kumar (4):
>   cpufreq: Don't check cpu_online(policy->cpu)
>   cpufreq: stats: Get rid of CPUFREQ_STATDEVICE_ATTR
>   cpufreq: Add per policy governor-init/exit infrastructure
>   cpufreq: governor: Implement per policy instances of governors

Well, [1-2/4] are things I can take for v3.9 no problem.  The other two I'd
wait for the next cycle to be honest.  We already have 30+ cpufreq patches
scheduled for v3.9 and some of them quite subtle for that matter.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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/