linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] idle, thermal, acpi: Remove home grown idle implementations

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, 04 Jun 2014 23:34:51 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	lenb@...nel.org, mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	hpa@...or.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, rui.zhang@...el.com,
	luto@...capital.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] idle, thermal, acpi: Remove home grown idle implementations

On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 01:58:12 AM Jacob Pan wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 10:54:18 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I'm still sitting on this patch. Jacub you were going to make it play
> > nice with QoS?
> > 
> I had a patchset to work through system PM QOS and still maintain the
> idle injection efficiency. When I saw you did not merge the patch
> below, I thought you have abandoned it :)
> 
> The only issue as per our last discussion is the lack of notification
> when PM QOS cannot be met. But that is intrinsic to PM QOS itself.
> 
> I also consulted with Arjan and looked at directly intercept with
> intel_idle since both intel_powerclamp and intel_idle are arch specific
> drivers. But I think that is hard to do at per idle period basis,
> since we should still allow "natural" idle during the forced idle time.
> 
> So, I think we can take a two stepped approach,
> 1. integrate your patch with a
> updated version of https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/26/534 such that there
> is no performance/efficiency regression.
> 2. add notification mechanism to system qos when constraints cannot be
> met.

And then there's a question about how the notification would be supposed to
work.  So I guess we can proceed with 1. and really leave 2. for some time
in the future ATM.

Rafael

--
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/