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  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, 30 Apr 2020 09:32:17 -0700
From:   Saravana Kannan <>
To:     Viresh Kumar <>
Cc:     Georgi Djakov <>,
        Viresh Kumar <>, Nishanth Menon <>,
        Stephen Boyd <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        Sibi Sankar <>,
        Rajendra Nayak <>,
        Bjorn Andersson <>,
        Vincent Guittot <>,
        Jordan Crouse <>,
        Evan Green <>,
        Linux PM <>,
        <>, LKML <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/7] OPP: Update the bandwidth on OPP frequency changes

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:54 AM Viresh Kumar <> wrote:
> On 30-04-20, 00:35, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:09 PM Viresh Kumar <> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 24-04-20, 14:18, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > > > My only comment is -- can we drop this patch please? I'd like to use
> > > > devfreq governors for voting on bandwidth and this will effectively
> > > > override whatever bandwidth decisions are made by the devfreq
> > > > governor.
> > >
> > > And why would that be better ? FWIW, that will have the same problem
> > > which cpufreq governors had since ages, i.e. they were not proactive
> > > and were always too late.
> > >
> > > The bw should get updated right with frequency, why shouldn't it ?
> >
> > I didn't say the bw would be voted based on just CPUfreq. It can also
> > be based on CPU busy time and other stats. Having said that, this is
> > not just about CPUfreq. Having the bw be force changed every time a
> > device has it's OPP is changed is very inflexible. Please don't do it.
> So, the vote based on the requirements of cpufreq driver should come
> directly from the cpufreq side itself, but no one stops the others
> layers to aggregate the requests and then act on them. This is how it
> is done for other frameworks like clk, regulator, genpd, etc.

You are missing the point. This is not about aggregation. This is
about OPP voting for bandwidth on a path when the vote can/should be

I'll give another example. Say one of the interconnect paths needs to
be voted only when a particular use case is running. Say, the GPU
needs to vote for bandwidth to L3 only when it's running in cache
coherent mode. But it always needs to vote for bandwidth to DDR. With
the way it's written now, OPP is going to force vote a non-zero
bandwidth to L3 even when it can be zero. Wasting power for no good

Just let the drivers/device get the bandwidth values from OPP without
forcing them to vote for the bandwidth when they don't need to. Just
because they decide to use OPP to set their clock doesn't mean they
should lose to ability to control their bandwidth in a more
intelligent fashion.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists