| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:31:38 +0300 From: Eero Nurkkala <ext-eero.nurkkala@...ia.com> To: ext Steven Noonan <steven@...inklabs.net> Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com> Subject: Re: [BISECTED] "conservative" cpufreq governor broken On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 18:32 +0200, ext Steven Noonan wrote: > I noticed on my machine that the "conservative" cpufreq governor wasn't > working properly in v2.6.31.1 or Linus' latest tree, but it worked fine on > v2.6.30.8, so I decided I should figure out where this issue was coming > from. The issue is pretty clear... > I had some troubles with cpufreq-info as all values in "cpufreq stats" were being as 0,00% (I fixed it by replacing unsigned long longs with unsigned longs, and recompiled) If this shows still insane values: cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/stats/time_in_state I guess your system is indeed broken. However. I get: (cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/stats/time_in_state) (OP1 == highest Frequency) OP1 7148 OP2 242 OP3 2307 OP4 43145 And another round: cpufreq stats: OP1:16,78%, OP2:0,24%, OP3:5,14%, OP4:77,83% (72) Just once more after doing nothing: OP1:7,41%, OP2:0,11%, OP3:2,38%, OP4:90,10% (82) So I can't agree it's broken. The patch you bisected, actually filtered out such phenomenon, in which an IRQ made the cpufreq framework occasionally think we were idling, although we were not. So you got "bonus" idle time that shouldn't been there in the first place. Now that the "bonus" idle time is not there, your system load may indeed be so high that the system never spends 80% or more time in idle? Could that be the case? Of course, even though I can't agree it's broken, doesn't mean it isn't somehow broken ;) It'd be nice to get info on other systems as well... > > Here's the expected: > > cpufrequtils 005: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2006 > Report errors and bugs to cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, please. > analyzing CPU 0: > driver: acpi-cpufreq > CPUs which need to switch frequency at the same time: 0 > hardware limits: 1000 MHz - 2.33 GHz > available frequency steps: 2.33 GHz, 2.17 GHz, 2.00 GHz, 1.83 GHz, 1.67 GHz, 1.50 GHz, 1.33 GHz, 1000 MHz > available cpufreq governors: ondemand, userspace, powersave, conservative, performance > current policy: frequency should be within 1000 MHz and 2.33 GHz. > The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use > within this range. > current CPU frequency is 1000 MHz (asserted by call to hardware). > cpufreq stats: 2.33 GHz:0.59%, 2.17 GHz:1.41%, 2.00 GHz:0.88%, 1.83 GHz:1.22%, 1.67 GHz:0.88%, 1.50 GHz:1.41%, 1.33 GHz:10.98%, 1000 MHz:82.63% (33) > analyzing CPU 1: > driver: acpi-cpufreq > CPUs which need to switch frequency at the same time: 1 > hardware limits: 1000 MHz - 2.33 GHz > available frequency steps: 2.33 GHz, 2.17 GHz, 2.00 GHz, 1.83 GHz, 1.67 GHz, 1.50 GHz, 1.33 GHz, 1000 MHz > available cpufreq governors: ondemand, userspace, powersave, conservative, performance > current policy: frequency should be within 1000 MHz and 2.33 GHz. > The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use > within this range. > current CPU frequency is 1000 MHz (asserted by call to hardware). > cpufreq stats: 2.33 GHz:0.40%, 2.17 GHz:0.16%, 2.00 GHz:0.16%, 1.83 GHz:0.35%, 1.67 GHz:0.16%, 1.50 GHz:0.35%, 1.33 GHz:0.16%, 1000 MHz:98.27% (7) > > > > And here is the broken version (note the 'cpufreq stats' line): > > cpufrequtils 005: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2006 > Report errors and bugs to cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, please. > analyzing CPU 0: > driver: acpi-cpufreq > CPUs which need to switch frequency at the same time: 0 > hardware limits: 1000 MHz - 2.33 GHz > available frequency steps: 2.33 GHz, 2.17 GHz, 2.00 GHz, 1.83 GHz, 1.67 GHz, 1.50 GHz, 1.33 GHz, 1000 MHz > available cpufreq governors: ondemand, userspace, powersave, conservative, performance > current policy: frequency should be within 1000 MHz and 2.33 GHz. > The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use > within this range. > current CPU frequency is 2.33 GHz (asserted by call to hardware). > cpufreq stats: 2.33 GHz:100.00%, 2.17 GHz:0.00%, 2.00 GHz:0.00%, 1.83 GHz:0.00%, 1.67 GHz:0.00%, 1.50 GHz:0.00%, 1.33 GHz:0.00%, 1000 MHz:0.00% > analyzing CPU 1: > driver: acpi-cpufreq > CPUs which need to switch frequency at the same time: 1 > hardware limits: 1000 MHz - 2.33 GHz > available frequency steps: 2.33 GHz, 2.17 GHz, 2.00 GHz, 1.83 GHz, 1.67 GHz, 1.50 GHz, 1.33 GHz, 1000 MHz > available cpufreq governors: ondemand, userspace, powersave, conservative, performance > current policy: frequency should be within 1000 MHz and 2.33 GHz. > The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use > within this range. > current CPU frequency is 2.33 GHz (asserted by call to hardware). > cpufreq stats: 2.33 GHz:100.00%, 2.17 GHz:0.00%, 2.00 GHz:0.00%, 1.83 GHz:0.00%, 1.67 GHz:0.00%, 1.50 GHz:0.00%, 1.33 GHz:0.00%, 1000 MHz:0.00% > > > So basically, it just never clocks down from the maximum frequency. > > > Here's the bisection log: > > # bad: [2147b209] Linux 2.6.31.1 > # good: [a1c4c06a] Linux 2.6.30.8 > # good: [07a2039b] Linux 2.6.30 > # good: [452dac45] V4L/DVB (11761): dvb-ttpci: Fixed VIDEO_SLOWMOTION > # bad: [906e8d97] e1000e: delay second read of PHY_STATUS register o > # good: [36e84467] Staging: heci: fix userspace pointer mess > # bad: [df36b439] Merge branch 'for-2.6.31' of git://git.linux-nfs.o > # skip: [12e24f34] Merge branch 'perfcounters-fixes-for-linus' of git > # good: [48c93112] powerpc: Fix invalid construct in our CPU selectio > # bad: [eca41044] n_r3964: fix lock imbalance > # good: [93db6294] Merge branch 'for-linus' of git://git.kernel.org/p > # bad: [1eb51c33] Merge branch 'sched-fixes-for-linus' of git://git. > # good: [1d991001] Merge branch 'x86/mce3' into x86/urgent > # good: [71e308a2] function-graph: add stack frame test > # bad: [38df92b8] Merge branch 'timers-fixes-for-linus' of git://git > # good: [ad5cf46b] Merge git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/gi > # good: [7fd5b632] Merge branch 'for-linus' of git://git.monstr.eu/li > # good: [c4c5ab30] Merge branch 'x86-fixes-for-linus' of git://git.ke > # bad: [f2e21c96] NOHZ: Properly feed cpufreq ondemand governor > > > And finally, the commit that broke "conservative": > > commit f2e21c9610991e95621a81407cdbab881226419b > Author: Eero Nurkkala <ext-eero.nurkkala@...ia.com> > Date: Mon May 25 09:57:37 2009 +0300 > > NOHZ: Properly feed cpufreq ondemand governor > > A call from irq_exit() may occasionally pause the timing > info for cpufreq ondemand governor. This results in the > cpufreq ondemand governor to fail to calculate the > system load properly. Thus, relocate the checks for this > particular case to keep the governor always functional. > > Signed-off-by: Eero Nurkkala <ext-eero.nurkkala@...ia.com> > Reported-by: Tero Kristo <tero.kristo@...ia.com> > Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> > Acked-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> > > > I'd work on fixing it myself and whip up a patch, but I'm going to be gone > all day and I'm not too familiar with cpufreq anyway. > > - Steven -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists