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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:48:54 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: govern how frequently we change frequency with rate_limit On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 01:36:05 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:42:10PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > But when I discussed this with Vincent, he suggested that it may not be required > > > at all as the scheduler (with the helped of "decayed") doesn't call into > > > schedutil too often, i.e. at least 1 ms. And if the CPUs are stable enough (i.e. > > > no interruptions to the running task), we wouldn't reevaluate before the next > > > tick. > > > > There are still the attach/detach callers to cfs_rq_util_change() that > > kick in for fork/exit and migration. > > > > But yes, barring those we shouldn't end up calling it at silly rates. > > OK > > Does this mean that running governor computations every time its callback > is invoked by the scheduler would be fine? I'd say yes right up till the point someone reports a regression ;-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists