linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] cpufreq: schedutil: ignore sugov kthreads

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: <20171130164237.GI31247@e110439-lin>
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:42:51 +0000
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] cpufreq: schedutil: ignore sugov kthreads

On 30-Nov 17:12, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 30/11/17 16:02, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On 30-Nov 14:41, Juri Lelli wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > If the DL changes (which I shall post again as soon as tip/sched/core is
> > > bumped up to 4.15-rc1) get in first, this is going to be useless (as the
> > > DL kthread gets ignored by the scheduling class itself). But, this looks
> > > good to me "in the meantime".
> > 
> > Just to better understand, you mean that the DL kthread does not send
> > out schedutil updates?
> 
> It doesn't have a "proper" bandwidth (utilization) :/. So it gets
> "unnoticed" and schedutil updates are not triggered.

Ah, right... that was the "let CBS ignore this DL task" solution! ;-)

> > 
> > If that's the case I agree we can discard this patch... that's also
> > one of the reasons why I move it at the end of this series.
> 
> Not sure about this though, not my call :). I guess this still helps
> until we get the DL changes in.

Yes, agree... well Viresh had some concerns about this patch.
Let see what he thinks.
 
> Best,
> 
> Juri

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi