linux-kernel - Re: regression caused by 08f511fd41c3 ("cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update

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, 17 Jun 2016 17:32:25 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: regression caused by 08f511fd41c3 ("cpufreq: Reduce
 cpufreq_update_util() overhead a bit")

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 06:16:51AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > Paul, Peter, any ideas about what may be going on here?
>>
>> Looks to me like this commit moved some code from synchronize_rcu() to
>> synchronize_sched().  Assuming that this is a CONFIG_PREEMPT=y system,
>> might there have been a decrease in the wakeups from the rcu_preempt
>> kthread?
>
> The 'funny' thing is though; those synchronize thingies are only reached
> when we change cpufreq policy, so things like:
>
>   for i in /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor ; do echo performance > $i ; done

Or if you change min or max for a policy and the driver is intel_pstate.

> Something which is hardly possible when idle. Weird.

Well, exactly.

Jisheng, do you use intel_pstate or acpi-cpufreq as the scaling driver?