linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v3 0/5] cpufreq:LAB: Support for LAB 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKohpo=6F_d3WF6TuNODDhhig5oDjC2dhAjqXp4E+c6VJyCiFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Mar 2014 15:45:34 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jonghwa Lee <jonghwa3.lee@...sung.com>,
	Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...ess.pl>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
	Myungjoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
	Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>,
	Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@...il.com>,
	Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@...sung.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 0/5] cpufreq:LAB: Support for LAB governor.

[Adding Linaro lists in cc as there are few people here working on power/thermal
stuff.]

On 24 March 2014 15:30, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com> wrote:
>> On 4 March 2014 15:57, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com> wrote:

> I think, that "LAB" name is with us for some time, so it would be a
> pity to discard it.

It doesn't matter with Mainline how you do naming initially for your code :)
We need to pick the right name now, and the decision should be made
now (after discussions obviously) :)

>> What about making it as simple as:
>> - changing the ondemand governor only instead of adding a new governor
>
> My goal is to not touch the ondemand code. It has matured, so I would
> like to leave it as it is.

Because the boost feature is already part of CPUFreq core, I think its
better if we enhance current governors to use it. So, I would like to
make this part of existing governors. Not only ondemand but maybe
conservative as well..

Also, I feel we maynot necessarily move this piece of code into cpufreq.
All you are doing is thermal management here :)

If we are sure we will not burn out our SoC (When many cores are idle),
run at max freq (if there is enough load of course :))..

And if there are chances that we might burn our chip (when very few
cores are idle), don't run on boost frequencies..

This is actually a 'cooling' device :)

Think of it this way: CPUFreq will provide a range of frequency which
SoC's can use. And then based on some conditions we may or may not
want to run on these frequencies.

@Zhang/Eduardo: Can we have your inputs here as well ?

This may look hard but we need to design things in the best possible
way for managing things better in future. Lets see what others have
to say on this.
--
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/