linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: exynos_defconfig: Enable Energy Model framework

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:   Thu, 6 Feb 2020 13:59:13 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc:     kgene@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        "linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        myungjoo.ham@...sung.com, kyungmin.park@...sung.com,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com,
        Bartłomiej Żołnierkiewicz 
        <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>, dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: exynos_defconfig: Enable Energy Model framework

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 13:49, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
> >> As mentioned in response to patch 1/3. The fist patch would create MC
> >> domain, something different than Energy Model or EAS. The decisions in
> >> the scheduler would be different.
> >>
> >> I can merge 1/3 and 3/3 if you like, though.
> >
> > I understand now that their independent. Still, they are part of one
> > goal to tune the scheduler for Exynos platform. Splitting these looks
> > too much, like enabling multiple drivers one after another.
> >
> > However if you provide numbers for each of cases (before patches, multi
> > core scheduler, energy model with DTS), then I see benefit of splitting
> > it.  Each commit would have its own rationale.  I am not sure if it is
> > worth such investigation - that's just defconfig... distros might ignore
> > it anyway.
>
> Good point, and I agree that it would require more investigation, for
> which unfortunately I don't have currently spare cycles.
>
> Should I merge patch 1/3 and 3/3 and send the v2 with a cover letter
> which would have the test results?

Yes, let's do this way.

Thanks for working on this!

Best regards,
Krzysztof