linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] x86: intel_epb: Add earlyparam option to keep bias at performance

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: <83431857-7182-471a-9ff1-9dac37e5a02f@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 07:09:42 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Jack Allister <jalliste@...zon.com>
Cc: bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hdegoede@...hat.com,
 hpa@...or.com, juew@...zon.com, len.brown@...el.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, pdurrant@...zon.com,
 peterz@...radead.org, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, rafael@...nel.org,
 tglx@...utronix.de, usama.arif@...edance.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86: intel_epb: Add earlyparam option to keep bias at
 performance

On 1/2/24 06:46, Jack Allister wrote:
> With the suggestion above you mentioned implementing this, if this was to be implemented
> do you think keeping it `intel_epb_restore_default` as a bool is still worth it? e.g:
...
> Or do you think it would be worth actually removing `intel_epb_no_override` and creating
> a module variable `intel_epb_restore_default` which is an enum of the performance values.
> 
> Doing so would then allow for expansability in the future which you had already alluded to
> e.g setting to other values such as EPB_INDEX_BALANCE_POWERSAVE/PERFORMANCE.

You should leave 'intel_epb_restore_default' as a bool unless there is
some compelling reason to change it.  A _possible_ future need for more
settings isn't compelling.