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: <CAJZ5v0ghHFJCfG5vxE=O6+bD4neyvyF2WD6ASGptBaptm2-5Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Mar 2020 20:37:21 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "open list:POWER MANAGEMENT CORE" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powercap/drivers/idle_inject: Specify idle state max latency

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 8:20 PM Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 26/03/2020 20:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 3:48 PM Daniel Lezcano
> > <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Currently the idle injection framework uses the play_idle()
> >> function which puts the current CPU in an idle state. The idle
> >> state is the deepest one, as specified by the latency constraint
> >> when calling the subsequent play_idle_precise() function with the
> >> INT_MAX.
> >>
> >> The idle_injection is used by the cpuidle_cooling device which
> >> computes the idle / run duration to mitigate the temperature by
> >> injecting idle cycles. The cooling device has no control on the
> >> depth of the idle state.
> >>
> >> Allow finer control of the idle injection mechanism by allowing
> >> to specify the latency for the idle state. Thus the cooling
> >> device has the ability to have a guarantee on the exit latency of
> >> the idle states it is injecting.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> ---
> >> drivers/powercap/idle_inject.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >> include/linux/idle_inject.h    |  6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 32
> >> insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >> + +void idle_inject_set_latency(struct idle_inject_device
> >> *ii_dev, +                            unsigned int latency_ns);
> >> + +unsigned int idle_inject_get_latency(struct idle_inject_device
> >> *ii_dev); + #endif /* __IDLE_INJECT_H__ */ --
> >
> > I would like to see a user of idle_inject_get_latency() before this
> > goes in.
>
> Do you mean a user for the set/get or the get only? If the latter,
> there is no user yet I just added it to have an usual get/set helpers,
> if that hurts, I can resend by removing it. If the former, there is a
> patch I'm about to send which depends on the 'set'.

So I wouldn't add the "get" thing at all if it has no users.

Also it would be better to send this patch along with the other one
depending on it.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ