linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler utilization data

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:	Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:14:43 +0000
From:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler
 utilization data

On 03/03/16 17:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 04:55:44PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 03/03/16 17:37, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > But given the platform's cpuidle information, maybe coupled with an avg
> > > idle est, we can compute the benefit of race-to-idle and over provision
> > > based on that, right?
> > > 
> > 
> > Shouldn't this kind of considerations be a scheduler thing? I'm not
> > really getting why we want to put more "intelligence" in a new governor.
> > Also, if I understand Ingo's point correctly, I think we want to make
> > this kind of policy decisions inside the scheduler.
> 
> Well sure, put it in kernel/sched/cpufreq.c or wherever. My point was
> more that we don't have to guess/hardcode race-to-idle assumptions but
> can actually calculate some of that.
> 

Right, thanks for clarifying!