linux-kernel - Re: Concerns with em.yaml YNL spec

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

Message-ID: <0d523461-c9b9-402a-b317-badcbd48dae0@igalia.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2025 11:06:49 +0900
From: Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>,
 Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 sched-ext@...ts.linux.dev, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Concerns with em.yaml YNL spec


On 12/16/25 00:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 4:01 PM Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Let me provide the context of what has been discussed. Essentially, the
>> question is what the proper name of the netlink protocol is and its file
>> name for the energy model.
>>
>> Donald raised concerns that “em” is too cryptic, so it should be
>> “energy-model”. The following is Donald’s comment:
>>
>>
>>     “- I think the spec could have been called energy-model.yaml and the
>>      family called "energy-model" instead of "em".”
>>
>>
>> Andrew’s opinion is that it would be appropriate to limit the scope of
>> “energy-model” by adding a prefix, for example, “performance-domain-
>> energy-model”. Andrew’s comment is as follows:
>>
>>     “And a dumb question. What is an energy model? A PSE needs some level
>>     of energy model, it needs to know how much energy each PD can consume
>>     in order that it is not oversubscribed. Is the energy model generic
>>     enough that it could be used for this? Or should this energy model get
>>     a prefix to limit its scope to a performance domain? The suggested
>>     name of this file would then become something like
>>     performance-domain-energy-model.yml?”
>>
>> For me, “performance-domain-energy-model” sounds weird because the
>> performance domain is conceptually under the energy model. If adding a
>> prefix to limit the scope, it should be something like “system-energy-
>> model”, and the “system” prefix looks redundant to me.
>>
>> So, the question is what the proper name is for the energy model
>> protocol: “em”, “energy-model”, “performance-domain-energy-model”, or
>> something else?
> 
> I personally would be for something like "device-energy-model", where
> "device" may mean any kind of device including CPU devices.
> 

"device-energy-model" sounds good to me. I will prepare the patchset
using that name. Thanks a lot!

Regards,
Changwoo Min