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  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]
Date:   Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:52:57 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        Quentin Perret <>,
        Linux PM <>,
        LKML <>,
        Viresh Kumar <>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <>,
        Chen Yu <>,
        Gabriele Mazzotta <>
Subject: Re: [RFT][Update][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Update max CPU
 frequency on global turbo changes

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:44 PM Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 11:58:37AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > So after the Peter's patch "sched/cpufreq: Fix 32bit math overflow"
> > I will need to recompute sg_cpu->min in sugov_limits().
> So there's still an open question; do we want that ->min thing to depend
> on available frequencies _at_all_ ?
> I'm thinking it might be a good thing to have the iowait boost curve be
> independent of all that.
> Like said; if we set it at 128 (static), it takes 9 consequtive wake-ups
> for it to reach 1024 (max). While now the curve depends on how wide the
> gap is between min_freq and max_freq. And it seems weird to have this
> behaviour depend on that. To me at least.
> Now, I don't know if 128/9 is the right curve, it is just a random
> number I pulled out of a hat. But it seems to make more sense than
> depending on frequencies.

I agree.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists