linux-kernel - [PATCH v6 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon,  1 Apr 2013 15:11:07 -0500
From:	Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
To:	viresh.kumar@...aro.org, rjw@...k.pl
Cc:	cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@....com>
Subject: [PATCH v6 0/2] cpufreq: cpufreq_driver_lock is hot on large systems

I am noticing the cpufreq_driver_lock is quite hot.
On an idle 512 system perf shows me most of the system time is spent on this
lock.  This is quite significant as top shows 5% of time in system time.
My solution was to first split the lock into two parts, cpu_driver_lock and 
cpu_data_lock, with the cpufreq_driver also being protected by the RCU.
There was measurable heat left on the cpufreq_data_lock in __cpufreq_cpu_get.
So in the second part I converted the cpufreq_data_lock to be a rw lock since
an rcu solution was not apparent, at least to me.

v5: Go a different way and split up the lock and use the rcu
v6: use bools instead of checking function pointers
    covert the cpufreq_data_lock to a rwlock

Nathan Zimmer (2):
  cpufreq: split the cpufreq_driver_lock and use the rcu
  cpufreq: covert the cpufreq_data_lock to a spinlock

 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 302 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 219 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-)

-- 
1.8.1.2

--
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/