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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 06:03:38 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jacob.jun.pan@...el.com, fweisbec@...il.com, frederic@...nel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, amit.kucheria@...aro.org, edubezval@...il.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, rui.zhang@...el.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] idle/intel_powerclamp: Redesign idle injection to use bandwidth control mechanism > Also, exposing these and root_task_group is of course vile. Not to > mention you change the user (cgroup) interface without mention. > > In any case, I cannot see how this could ever work. Bandwidth is shared > across CPUs; nothing will even attempt to get CPUs to idle at the same > time. idle injection is only worth it if you can get package C states, e.g. all cpus in the system are idle at the same time. (and in powerclamp, the package C state %age is the target of the control loop, since that's pretty much the amount of power reduced) > > -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists