On Tuesday 25 Sep 2018 at 17:49:56 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I really don't see how changing the unit changes anything. Either you
> want to relate to OPPs and those are exposed in 1/1024 unit capacity
> through the EAS files, or you don't and then the knob has no meaning.
FWIW, with the la
Hi Peter,
On 21-Sep 11:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:27:23PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
[...]
While going back to one of our previous conversation, I noted these
comments:
> > Thus, the capacity of little CPUs, or the exact capacity of an OPP, is
> > something we don
On 25-Sep 17:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 04:14:00PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
[...]
> Well, with DL there are well defined rules for what to put in and what
> to then expect.
>
> For this thing, not so much I feel.
Maybe you'll prove me wrong, but that's not already
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 04:14:00PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > So why bother changing it around?
>
> For two main reasons:
>
> 1) to expose userspace a more generic interface:
>a "performance percentage" is more generic then a "capacity value"
>while keep translating and using a 10
On 24-Sep 17:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 04:14:00PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On 21-Sep 11:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Laptops with active cooling however...
> >
> > How do you see active cooling playing a role ?
> >
> > Are you thinking, for example, at reduce
On 24-Sep 18:26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 04:14:00PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
>
> > ... still it's difficult to give a precise definition of knee point,
> > unless you know about platforms which have a sharp change in energy
> > efficiency.
> >
> > The only cases we kn
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 04:14:00PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> ... still it's difficult to give a precise definition of knee point,
> unless you know about platforms which have a sharp change in energy
> efficiency.
>
> The only cases we know about are those where:
>
> A) multiple frequencie
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 04:14:00PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 21-Sep 11:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Laptops with active cooling however...
>
> How do you see active cooling playing a role ?
>
> Are you thinking, for example, at reduced fan noise if we remain below
> a certain OPP ?
>
>
On 21-Sep 11:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:27:23PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On 14-Sep 16:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > The thing is, the values you'd want to use are for example the capacity
> > > of the little CPUs. or the capacity of the most energy efficien
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:27:23PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 14-Sep 16:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The thing is, the values you'd want to use are for example the capacity
> > of the little CPUs. or the capacity of the most energy efficient OPP
> > (the knee).
>
> I don't think so.
>
>
On 14-Sep 16:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Just a quick reply because I have to run..
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 03:07:32PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On 14-Sep 13:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > I think the problem here is that the two are conflated in the very same
> > > interface.
> >
Just a quick reply because I have to run..
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 03:07:32PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 14-Sep 13:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I think the problem here is that the two are conflated in the very same
> > interface.
> >
> > Would it make sense to move the available clam
On 14-Sep 13:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:40:53PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > 1) _I think_ we don't want to depend on capable(CAP_SYS_NICE) but
> >instead on capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)
> >
> >Does that make sense ?
>
> Neither of them really makes sense to me.
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:40:53PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> 1) _I think_ we don't want to depend on capable(CAP_SYS_NICE) but
>instead on capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)
>
>Does that make sense ?
Neither of them really makes sense to me.
The max clamp makes a task 'consume' less and you sh
On 06-Sep 16:59, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 06/09/18 15:40, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On 04-Sep 15:47, Juri Lelli wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Wondering if you want to fold the check below inside the
> > >
> > > if (user && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) {
> > >...
> > > }
> > >
> > > block. It would a
On 06/09/18 15:40, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 04-Sep 15:47, Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> > Wondering if you want to fold the check below inside the
> >
> > if (user && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) {
> >...
> > }
> >
> > block. It would also save you from adding another parameter to the
> > funct
On 04-Sep 15:47, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 28/08/18 14:53, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > The number of clamp groups supported is limited and defined at compile
> > time. However, a malicious user can currently ask for many different
>
> Even if not malicious.. :-)
Yeah... I should had write "a
Hi,
On 28/08/18 14:53, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> The number of clamp groups supported is limited and defined at compile
> time. However, a malicious user can currently ask for many different
Even if not malicious.. :-)
> clamp values thus consuming all the available clamp groups.
>
> Since on pr
The number of clamp groups supported is limited and defined at compile
time. However, a malicious user can currently ask for many different
clamp values thus consuming all the available clamp groups.
Since on properly configured systems we expect only a limited set of
different clamp values, the p
19 matches
Mail list logo
