linux-kernel - Re: [RFCv7 PATCH 01/10] sched: Compute cpu capacity available at current frequency

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:	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 02:37:19 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv7 PATCH 01/10] sched: Compute cpu capacity available at current frequency

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:19:16 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 02:41:20AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >  /*
> > > + * Returns the current capacity of cpu after applying both
> > > + * cpu and freq scaling.
> > > + */
> > > +static unsigned long capacity_curr_of(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > +       return cpu_rq(cpu)->cpu_capacity_orig *
> > > +              arch_scale_freq_capacity(NULL, cpu)
> > 
> > What about architectures that don't have this?
> 
> They get the 'default' which is a constant SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE unit.
> 
> > Why is that an architecture feature?
> 
> Because not all archs can tell the frequency the same way. Some you
> program the DVFS state and they really run at this speed, for those you
> can simply report back.
> 
> For others, x86 for example, you program a DVFS 'hint' and the hardware
> does whatever, we'd have to do APERF/MPERF samples to get an idea of the
> actual frequency we ran at.
> 
> Also, the having of this makes the load tracking slightly more
> expensive, instead of compile time constants we get function calls and
> actual multiplications. Its not _too_ bad, but still.

That's all correct, but my question should rather be: is arch the right
granularity?

In theory, there may be ARM64-based platforms using ACPI and behaving
like x86 in that respect in the future.

Thanks,
Rafael