linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 3/9] cpufreq: Cap the default transition delay value to 10 ms

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:53:37 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux@...inikbrodowski.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/9] cpufreq: Cap the default transition delay value
 to 10 ms

On 01-08-17, 20:48, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> > > I found this by enabling the power:cpu_frequency tracepoint event and
> > > checking for deltas with a script. Enabling CPU_FREQ_STAT show this:
> > > 
> > > time_in_state:
> > > 
> > > 396000 1609
> > So we still stay at the lowest frequency most of the time.
> 
> Yes

Aren't these numbers you shared were taken after this patch is applied? What's
wrong with the numbers then ?

> > Maybe can you compare these values with and without this patch to let
> > us know?
> 
> Without the patch it is always at low freq. Sampling at a lower
> frequency means spikes get ignored.

-- 
viresh