linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

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: <1941953.5pVr1esCdP@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date:   Wed, 24 May 2017 01:30:36 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>, mingo@...hat.com,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
        tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it, bristot@...hat.com,
        mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, tkjos@...roid.com, joelaf@...gle.com,
        andresoportus@...gle.com, morten.rasmussen@....com,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, patrick.bellasi@....com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 09:29:27 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:53:47AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > To be able to treat utilization signals of different scheduling classes
> > in different ways (e.g., CFS signal might be stale while DEADLINE signal
> > is never stale by design) we need to split sugov_cpu::util signal in two:
> > util_cfs and util_dl.
> > 
> > This patch does that by also changing sugov_get_util() parameter list.
> > After this change aggregation of the different signals has to be performed
> > by sugov_get_util() users (so that they can decide what to do with the
> > different signals).
> 
> So what I don't see this patch doing; and I don't remember if cpufreq is
> ready for this at all, is set the util_dl as min/guaranteed freq and
> util_cfs+util_dl as requested freq.

I'm totally unsure what you mean here.

cpufreq doesn't have a "guaranteed frequency" concept of any sort right now.