linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Use CPPC to get max performance

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: <1474570901.3916.198.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:01:41 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, jolsa@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Use CPPC to get max
 performance

On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 20:56 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Tim Chen wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 22:30 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 
> > > My current understanding is that we need to rebuild sched domains
> > > after setting the priorities, 
> > No, that's not true.  We need to rebuild the sched domains only
> > when the sched domain flags are changed, not when we are changing
> > the priorities.  Only the sched domain flag is a property of
> > the sched domain. CPU priority values are not part of sched domain.
> > 
> > Morten had similar question about whether we need to rebuild sched domain
> > when we change cpu priorities when we first post the patches. 
> > Peter has explained that it wasn't necessary.
> > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1608.3/01753.html
> And why is there no explanation in form of a comment in the code?

Sure, I'll add a comment.

Thanks.

Tim