linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / EM: and devices to Energy Model

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]

Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 2020 09:37:55 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-imx@....com, Morten.Rasmussen@....com, Chris.Redpath@....com,
        ionela.voinescu@....com, javi.merino@....com,
        cw00.choi@...sung.com, b.zolnierkie@...sung.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        sudeep.holla@....com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, nm@...com,
        sboyd@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com, amit.kucheria@...durent.com,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        shawnguo@...nel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, khilman@...nel.org, agross@...nel.org,
        bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org,
        matthias.bgg@...il.com, steven.price@....com,
        tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com, alyssa.rosenzweig@...labora.com,
        airlied@...ux.ie, daniel@...ll.ch, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / EM: and devices to Energy Model

On Tuesday 21 Jan 2020 at 10:10:16 (+0100), Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> True. But then we hard-code that a CPU device performance domain can
> only be a frequency domain (which is true today).
> 
> The task scheduler (build_perf_domains()) and thermal are already using
> cpufreq_cpu_get() to access the cpufreq policy. Now the EM framework
> would too for CPU devices. I assume that could work with a couple of
> adaptations in Documentation/power/energy-model.rst.

Agreed, and if one day we have a real use case where the pd mask and the
cpufreq policy mask need to be different, we'll do the necessary
changes. But until then I don't see a reason to object to Lukasz'
proposal. So +1 from me.

Thanks,
Quentin