linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] Modularize schedutil

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: <jhjeerutr6w.mognet@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 08 May 2020 15:52:07 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, x86@...nel.org,
        hpa@...or.com, sudeep.holla@....com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        mgorman@...e.de, mcgrof@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        yzaikin@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com, tkjos@...gle.com,
        kernel-team@...roid.com, Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Modularize schedutil


On 08/05/20 14:15, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Hey Valentin,
>
> On Thursday 07 May 2020 at 22:34:17 (+0100), Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> I'm curious; why would some Android device not want to roll with schedutil?
>>
>> When it comes to dynamic policies (i.e. forget performance / powersave, and
>> put userspace in a corner), I'd be willing to take a stand and say you
>> should only really be using schedutil nowadays - alignment with the
>> scheduler, uclamp, yadda yadda.
>>
>> AFAIA the only schedutil-related quirk we oughta fix for arm/arm64 is that
>> arch_scale_freq_invariant() thingie, and FWIW I'm hoping to get something
>> regarding this out sometime soonish. After that, I'd actually want to make
>> schedutil the default governor for arm/arm64.
>
> As in setting CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_SCHEDUTIL=y in the arm64
> defconfig? If so, you have my Acked-by already :)
>

I'm actually thinking of making it the unconditional default for arm/arm64
in cpufreq's Kconfig, following what has been recently done for
intel_pstate.

>> I'm not opiniated on the modularization, but if you can, could you please
>> share some more details as to why schedutil cannot fulfill its role of holy
>> messiah of governors for GKI?
>
> I guess I answered some of that in the other thread with Peter, but all
> in all I'm definitely not trying to make an argument that schedutil
> isn't good enough here. I'm trying to say that mandating it in *GKI* is
> just likely to cause unnecessary friction, and trust me there is already
> enough of that with other topics.

Right, I appreciate it must be an "interesting" tug of war. My own opinion
has also already been expanded in the rest of the thread; i.e. we should
strive to make schedutil good enough that folks don't feel like they still
need to use ondemand/whatever frankengov. That said, even without GKI, I
get that making some vendors change their already tested-and-tuned setup is
an obstacle course in and of itself.

> Giving the option of having sugov as a
> module doesn't prevent us from making it a default for a few arches, so
> I think there is ground for an agreement!
>
> Cheers,
> Quentin