linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: dt: Set default policy->transition_delay

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:   Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:44:55 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@....com>,
        Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: dt: Set default policy->transition_delay_ns

On 27-06-17, 18:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> > @Rafael: Will it be fine to lower down the value of LATENCY_MULTIPLIER?
> 
> We can do that, but then I think we need to compensate for the change
> in the old governors code or there may be surprises.

Why shouldn't we change the value of LATENCY_MULTIPLIER for old
governors as well? They use the same calculations and the sampling
rate there is also this bad (like rate_limit_us).

If we aren't going to change that for old governors, then we can
create a local version of LATENCY_MULTIPLIER for schedutil I believe.

-- 
viresh