All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
To: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.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 10:57:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190307095750.GD29753@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190307093116.slvugyeos46kl3et@queper01-lin>

Hi,

On 07/03/19 09:31, Quentin Perret wrote:
> 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.

If people think it's best to simply make this RO, I won't be against it.
Just pointed out a conversation we recently had. Guess we could also
make it RW again (properly) in the future if somebody complains.

Best,

- Juri

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
To: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.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 10:57:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190307095750.GD29753@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190307093116.slvugyeos46kl3et@queper01-lin>

Hi,

On 07/03/19 09:31, Quentin Perret wrote:
> 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.

If people think it's best to simply make this RO, I won't be against it.
Just pointed out a conversation we recently had. Guess we could also
make it RW again (properly) in the future if somebody complains.

Best,

- Juri

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2019-03-07  9:57 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
2019-03-07  9:31                               ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-07  9:57                               ` Juri Lelli [this message]
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=20190307095750.GD29753@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=juri.lelli@gmail.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=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=quentin.perret@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: link
Be 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.