linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] PM / EM: Skip inefficient OPPs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 1 Jun 2021 14:43:52 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc:     Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ionela.voinescu@....com, lukasz.luba@....com,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] PM / EM: Skip inefficient OPPs

On 01-06-21, 09:07, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Just to reiterate here what was discussed on IRC the other day, I still
> feel that the choice of an efficient OPP or not is a policy decision,
> and should be left to the governor.

I agree. cpufreq core shouldn't always do this.

> It's not obvious to me that the userspace govenor for instance wants any
> of this. Same thing with e.g. the powersave governor if the lowest OPPs
> are inefficient (yes skipping them will not impact energy, but it will
> impact instantaneous power).

Yes, these governors shouldn't end up using the efficient only stuff.

> So if we're going to move that logic to the cpufreq core, then we'll
> probably want two separate APIs and make sure to use the effiency-aware
> one is used only from the places where that makes sense.

Yeah, we need another API or parameter "bool efficient" or something.

-- 
viresh