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: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 11:24:56 +0800 From: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>, Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@....com>, Steve Muckle <smuckle.linux@...il.com>, tkjos@...gle.com, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits 2016-11-21 20:26 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:14:32PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: >> On 21/11/16 11:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> > So no tunables and rate limits here at all please. >> > >> > During LPC we discussed the rampup and decay issues and decided that we >> > should very much first address them by playing with the PELT stuff. >> > Morton was going to play with capping the decay on the util signal. This >> > should greatly improve the ramp-up scenario and cure some other wobbles. >> > >> > The decay can be set by changing the over-all pelt decay, if so desired. >> > >> >> Do you mean we might want to change the decay (make it different from >> ramp-up) once for all, or maybe we make it tunable so that we can >> address different power/perf requirements? > > So the limited decay would be the dominant factor in ramp-up time, > leaving the regular PELT period the dominant factor for ramp-down. > > (Note that the decay limit would only be applied on the per-task signal, > not the accumulated signal.) What's the meaning of "signal" in this thread? Regards, Wanpeng Li
Powered by blists - more mailing lists