linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] sched/fair: Task placement biasing using uclamp

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: <20191220150418.GK2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:04:18 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net,
        qperret@...gle.com, qais.yousef@....com, morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] sched/fair: Task placement biasing using uclamp

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 04:06:38PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 11/12/2019 12:38, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > While uclamp restrictions currently only impact schedutil's frequency
> > selection, it would make sense to also let them impact CPU selection in
> > asymmetric topologies. This would let us steer specific tasks towards
> > certain CPU capacities regardless of their actual utilization - I give a
> > few examples in patch 4.
> > 
> > The first three patches are mainly cleanups, the meat of the thing is
> > in patches 4 and 5.
> > 
> > Note that this is in the same spirit as what Patrick had proposed for EAS
> > on Android [1]
> > 
> > [1]: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+/b61876ed122f816660fe49e0de1b7ee4891deaa2%5E%21
> 
> Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
> Tested-By: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>

Thanks!