linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v5] cpufreq: schedutil: Make iowait boost more energy efficient

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJWu+ookyOQGoBOsAWa4qezp_H_=1OGho7rwJdO=0iKy0EWNxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2017 23:02:57 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        Andres Oportus <andresoportus@...gle.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v5] cpufreq: schedutil: Make iowait boost more energy efficient

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 20-07-17, 12:49, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> Yes I think that's fine, I thought about it some more and I think this
>> can be an issue in a scenario where
>>
>> iowait_boost_max < policy->min  but:

Uhh I meant to say here iowait_boost < policy->min. Sorry.

> We will never have this case as boost-max is set to cpuinfo.max_freq.

But you're right it can't be an issue in current code. I was just
thinking of future proofing it incase someone decided to lower the
boost-max in the code for whatever reason and forgets to handle this.

thanks,

-Joel