linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 00/10] Introduce OPP bandwidth bindings

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: <ea73d0e7-7428-c3cf-b44b-59427c4d6109@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 13 May 2020 13:10:29 +0300
From:   Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@...aro.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     vireshk@...nel.org, nm@...com, sboyd@...nel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        saravanak@...gle.com, sibis@...eaurora.org, mka@...omium.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
        bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        jcrouse@...eaurora.org, evgreen@...omium.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/10] Introduce OPP bandwidth bindings

Hi Viresh,

On 5/13/20 09:55, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12-05-20, 15:53, Georgi Djakov wrote:
>> Here is a proposal to extend the OPP bindings with bandwidth based on
>> a few previous discussions [1] and patchsets from me [2][3] and Saravana
>> [4][5][6][7][8][9].
>>
>> Changes in v8:
>> * Addressed review comments from Matthias, Sibi and Viresh.
>> * Picked reviewed-by tags.
>> * Picked Sibi's interconnect-tag patches into this patchset.
> 
> I have applied the series with the modifications I replied with
> separately.

Thanks a lot!

> Please lemme know if any more tags (reviewed/acked) etc need to be
> applied or any more changes are required before I send the pull
> request to Rafael.
> 
> Please give my branch a try as soon as you can.

On top of your branch i tested with scaling 3 different test paths (also
tagged with different tags) and it looks good:

 node                                  tag          avg         peak
--------------------------------------------------------------------
slv_ebi_ch0                                      458824      1525000
  cpu0                                   3          922          911
  cpu0                                   2          902          901
  cpu0                                   1       457000      1525000

Apart from that, i ran memory throughput tests and they also confirm
that it's working as expected.

There will be a minor conflict with my branch when this is merged upstream,
so maybe we will need to report it or use an immutable tag/branch.

Thanks,
Georgi