linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] sched: Introduce energy models of CPUs

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: <2e35ede9-0926-836b-4068-8d12b6296597@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:03:25 +0200
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
        Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@....com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] sched: Introduce energy models of CPUs

On 04/10/2018 01:54 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 04:36:03PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Build the energy model of one CPU, and link it to all CPUs
>> +		 * in its frequency domain. This should be correct as long as
>> +		 * they share the same micro-architecture.
>> +		 */
> 
> Aside from the whole PM_OPP question; you should assert that assumption.
> Put an explicit check for the uarch in and FAIL the init if that isn't
> met.
> 
> I don't think it makes _ANY_ kind of sense to share a frequency domain
> across uarchs and we should be very clear we're not going to support
> anything like that.
> 
> I know DynamiQ strictly speaking allows that, but since it's insane, we
> should consider that a bug in DynamiQ.

Totally agree! We will add this assert. One open question of the current 
EAS design solved ;-)