linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] cpufreq / sched: Make schedutil access utilization data directly

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]

Message-ID: <20160802144343.GC22472@e106622-lin>
Date:	Tue, 2 Aug 2016 15:43:43 +0100
From:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To:	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] cpufreq / sched: Make schedutil access
 utilization data directly

On 02/08/16 07:28, Steve Muckle wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:38:17AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > Anyway one way that my patch differed was that I had used the flags
> > > > field to keep the behavior the same for both RT and DL.
> > 
> > Do you mean "go to max" policy for both, until proper policies will be
> > implemented in the future?
> 
> Yep.
> 

OK, thanks for clarifying.

> > > That happens
> > > > later on in this series for RT but the DL policy is modified as above.
> > > > Can the DL policy be left as-is and discussed/modified in a separate
> > > > series?
> > 
> > Not that we want to start discussing this point now, if we postpone the
> > change for later, but I just wanted to point out a difference w.r.t.
> > what the schedfreq thing was doing: it used to sum contributions from
> > the different classes, instead of taking the max. We probably never
> > really discussed on the list what is the right thing to do, though.
> 
> Yeah I figured that was worth deferring into its own patchset/thread.
> 

Right. Makes sense to me to defer this point.

Best,

- Juri