linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Use policy-dependent latency multupliers

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:   Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:03:11 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@....com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Use policy-dependent
 latency multupliers

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Brendan Jackman
<brendan.jackman@....com> wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Mon, Apr 10 2017 at 00:10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>>
>> Make the schedutil governor compute the initial (default) value of
>> the rate_limit_us sysfs attribute by multiplying the transition
>> latency by a multiplier depending on the policy and set by the
>> scaling driver (instead of using a constant for this purpose).
>>
>> That will allow scaling drivers to make schedutil use smaller default
>> values of rate_limit_us and reduce the default average time interval
>> between consecutive frequency changes.
>>
>
> I've been thinking about this over the last couple of days, and I'm
> thinking (in opposition to what I said at OSPM Pisa) that allowing
> drivers to specify a _multiplier_ isn't ideal, since you lose
> granularity when you want your rate limit to be close to your transition
> latency (i.e. if your multiplier would be 2.5 or something).
>
> Can we instead just have an independent field
> policy->default_rate_limit_us or similar?

Yes, we can.

Let me cut a v2 of this, shouldn't be too hard. :-)

Thanks,
Rafael