linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 0/3] LAB: Support for Legacy Application Booster governor

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:	Wed, 22 May 2013 14:05:50 +0200
From:	Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	Jonghwa Lee <jonghwa3.lee@...sung.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocky" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Vicent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
	Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...ess.pl>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/3] LAB: Support for Legacy Application Booster governor

Hi Viresh,

> On 22 May 2013 15:57, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com> wrote:
> >> On 3 May 2013 19:37, Jonghwa Lee <jonghwa3.lee@...sung.com> wrote:
> 
> > I think, that overclocking support is crucial here. As you pointed
> > out
> > - ondemand and conservative benefit from it. Therefore, I would urge
> >   for its mainline acceptance.
> >
> > (code for reference)
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1484746/match=cpufreq
> >
> > In this RFC (patch 1/3), I've decided to put the burden of
> > overclocking support to platform code (cpufreq/exynos-cpufreq.c and
> > cpufreq/exynos4x12-cpufreq.c).
> >
> > Those changes aren't intrusive for other boards/archs. Moreover
> > overclocking is closely related to processor clocking/power
> > dissipation capabilities, so SoC specific code is a good place for
> > it.
> >
> >
> > What DO need a broad acceptance is the overclocking API proposed at:
> > include/linux/cpufreq.h
> >
> > This introduces interface to which others will be bind. It
> > shouldn't be difficult to implement overclocking at other SoCs (as
> > it was proposed for Exynos).
> >
> > Feedback is welcome, since I might have overlooked oddities present
> > at other SoCs.
> 
> Hi..
> 
> I am not talking about the minute details here... for example I
> didn't like the way overclocking support is implemented... It has to
> be a bit more framework oriented then driver...

Presented implementation is only RFC. As I've written, I'm open for
suggestion.

> 
> What I am thinking right now is if it is worth to add both the
> features you are trying. i.e. overclocking and LAB..
> 
> So, requested you to give some figures... of ondemand with and without
> overclocking... 

I will provide test results for ondemand with overclocking enabled and
disabled. Thanks for clarification on this matter.

> Leave LAB for now...

Seems fair. One step on a time. Lets focus on overclocking.

> 
> Then we can give LAB a try with above...



-- 
Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

Samsung R&D Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
--
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/