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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists