linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] sched: cfs: introduce capacity

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 9 Oct 2014 11:00:24 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
Cc:	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>, mingo@...hat.com,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com, pjt@...gle.com, bsegall@...gle.com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
	rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tuukka.tikkanen@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] sched: cfs: introduce capacity_ops

On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 04:28:36PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > Yeah, like hell no. We do not want modules to affect scheduler
> > behaviour.
> 
> If a CPUfreq driver is the best place to know how frequency affects the
> capacity of a CPU for a given system, are you suggesting that we must
> compile that code into the kernel image instead of it being a loadable
> module?

Ideally we'll end up doing away with the cpufreq policy modules and
integrate the entire thing into the scheduler.
--
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/