linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 8/8] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Add the combo cpu cooling device

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: <20180206042853.GI28462@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Tue, 6 Feb 2018 09:58:53 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     edubezval@...il.com, kevin.wangtao@...aro.org, leo.yan@...aro.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, amit.kachhap@...il.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
        "open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        daniel.thompson@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Add the combo cpu
 cooling device

On 05-02-18, 11:32, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/02/2018 05:17, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Right, but I thought the cooling-maps can help us specify different cooling
> > states for different cooling devices for the same trip point. Maybe my
> > understanding of that is incorrect.

Any inputs on this? I am still wondering if this can be done.

> At the first glance, it sounds interesting but I'm afraid that raises
> more corner-cases than it solves because we have to take into account
> all the combinations: cpuidle=0 && cpufreq=1, cpuidle=1 && cpufreq=0,
> cpuidle=1 && cpufreq=1 with dynamic code changes when the cpufreq driver
> is loaded/unloaded.
> 
> I'm not against this approach as well as merging all the cpu cooling
> devices into a single one but that won't be trivial and will need
> several iterations before reaching this level of features.
> 
> IMO, we should keep the current approach (but handle the cpufreq
> loading/unloading) and then iteratively merge all the cooling device
> into a single one with policy change at runtime which will automatically
> handle the cpufreq load/unload.

Surely we can do one thing at a time if that's the way we choose to do it.

-- 
viresh