From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com> Cc: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org>, sudeep.holla@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, jeremy.linton@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as ready-only Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:31:19 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190307093116.slvugyeos46kl3et@queper01-lin> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190307072856.GC29753@localhost.localdomain> Hi Juri, On Thursday 07 Mar 2019 at 08:28:56 (+0100), Juri Lelli wrote: > There are cases in which this needs to be RW, as recently discussed > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181123135807.GA14964@e107155-lin/ Yeah there's that problem when you can't fix your DT ... But I guess this is a problem for _all_ values in the DT, not just capacities right ? But these other values, I'd expected they just can't be fixed from userspace most of the time, you just have to live with sub-optimal values. So I don't find it unreasonable to do that for capacities too. > IMHO, if the core_sibling assumption doesn't work in all cases, one > should be looking into fixing it, rather than making this RO. It's just that this thing keeps causing more harm than it helps IMO. It's quite severely broken ATM, and it prevents us from assuming 'stable' capacity values in places were we'd like to do so (e.g. EAS). And I'm not aware of a single platform where this is used. So, I'm personally all for removing the write capability if we can. Thanks, Quentin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com> Cc: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeremy.linton@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as ready-only Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:31:19 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190307093116.slvugyeos46kl3et@queper01-lin> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190307072856.GC29753@localhost.localdomain> Hi Juri, On Thursday 07 Mar 2019 at 08:28:56 (+0100), Juri Lelli wrote: > There are cases in which this needs to be RW, as recently discussed > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181123135807.GA14964@e107155-lin/ Yeah there's that problem when you can't fix your DT ... But I guess this is a problem for _all_ values in the DT, not just capacities right ? But these other values, I'd expected they just can't be fixed from userspace most of the time, you just have to live with sub-optimal values. So I don't find it unreasonable to do that for capacities too. > IMHO, if the core_sibling assumption doesn't work in all cases, one > should be looking into fixing it, rather than making this RO. It's just that this thing keeps causing more harm than it helps IMO. It's quite severely broken ATM, and it prevents us from assuming 'stable' capacity values in places were we'd like to do so (e.g. EAS). And I'm not aware of a single platform where this is used. So, I'm personally all for removing the write capability if we can. Thanks, Quentin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-07 9:31 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-02-28 11:53 [PATCH] arch_topology: Update user supplied capacity to possible cpus in cluster Lingutla Chandrasekhar 2019-02-28 12:19 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-02-28 14:38 ` Chandra Sekhar Lingutla 2019-02-28 15:25 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-02 13:30 ` Chandra Sekhar Lingutla 2019-03-04 18:21 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-05 9:23 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-05 11:13 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-05 11:29 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-05 11:36 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-05 15:53 ` Chandra Sekhar Lingutla 2019-03-05 16:12 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-05 16:54 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-06 15:22 ` Morten Rasmussen 2019-03-06 15:27 ` [PATCH v1] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as ready-only Lingutla Chandrasekhar 2019-03-06 15:27 ` Lingutla Chandrasekhar 2019-03-07 7:28 ` Juri Lelli 2019-03-07 7:28 ` Juri Lelli 2019-03-07 9:31 ` Quentin Perret [this message] 2019-03-07 9:31 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-07 9:57 ` Juri Lelli 2019-03-07 9:57 ` Juri Lelli 2019-03-07 12:14 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-07 12:14 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-07 15:04 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-07 15:04 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-07 15:19 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-07 15:19 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-08 11:45 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2019-03-08 11:45 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2019-03-08 12:38 ` [PATCH v2] " Lingutla Chandrasekhar 2019-03-08 12:38 ` Lingutla Chandrasekhar 2019-03-27 10:56 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-27 10:56 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-06 9:48 ` [PATCH] arch_topology: Update user supplied capacity to possible cpus in cluster Dietmar Eggemann
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20190307093116.slvugyeos46kl3et@queper01-lin \ --to=quentin.perret@arm.com \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=clingutla@codeaurora.org \ --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \ --cc=juri.lelli@gmail.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \ --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \ --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.