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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 4 Jun 2014 15:59:20 -0700
From:	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
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 Wed, 04 Jun 2014 23:34:51 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:

> 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.
Sounds good. Let me test/integrate Peter's patch with PM QoS change,
powerclamp and acpipad then come up with a patchset.

Thanks,

Jacob
--
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/