linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201117101128.6uapqg56arwqmm5p@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 15:41:28 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc:     Nicola Mazzucato <nicola.mazzucato@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        sudeep.holla@....com, rjw@...ysocki.net, vireshk@...nel.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, sboyd@...nel.org, nm@...com,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, morten.rasmussen@....com,
        chris.redpath@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for
 cpu-perf-dependencies

On 16-11-20, 11:33, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> On 11/9/20 6:57 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 06-11-20, 11:14, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> > > I also had similar doubts, because if we make frequency requests
> > > independently for each CPU, why not having N cooling devs, which
> > > will set independently QoS max freq for them...
> > > 
> > > What convinced me:
> > > EAS and FIE would know the 'real' frequency of the cluster, IPA
> > > can use it also and have only one cooling device per cluster.
> > > 
> > > We would like to keep this old style 'one cooling device per cpuset'.
> > > I don't have strong opinion and if it would appear that there are
> > > some errors in freq estimation for cluster, then maybe it does make
> > > more sense to have cdev per CPU...
> > 
> > Let me rephrase my question. What is it that doesn't work _correctly_
> > with cdev per cpufreq policy in your case? What doesn't work well if
> > the thermal stuff keeps looking at only the related_cpus thing and not
> > the cpu-perf-dependencies thing?
> > 
> 
> We don't have a platform which would be this per-cpu freq request, yet.
> Thus it's hard to answer your question. The EAS would work in 'old
> style' - cluster mode. I don't know how IPA would work on such HW
> and SW configuration. To figure this out I need a real platform.

Hmm, so who are going to be the users of this new stuff (dependent
CPUs) ? I don't think cpufreq-cooling should be updated, unless there
is a compelling reason to.

The other one in energy model ? Why does it need this information ?

Who else ?

-- 
viresh