linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: use cpufreq_quick_get() for /proc/cpuinfo "cpu MHz" again

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:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 01:30:37 +0100
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        WANG Chao <chao.wang@...oud.cn>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: use cpufreq_quick_get() for /proc/cpuinfo "cpu MHz" again

On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 1:06:12 AM CET Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >> Current head + Raphaels patch:
> >>
> >> real    0m0.029s
> >> user    0m0.000s
> >> sys     0m0.010s
> >>
> >> So that patch is actually slower.
> >
> > Oh it definitely is expected to be slower, because it does the IPI to
> > all the cores and actually gets their frequency right.
> >
> > It was the old one that we had to revert (because it did so
> > sequentially) that was really bad, and took something like 2+ seconds
> > on Ingo's 160-core thing, iirc.
> 
> Looked it up. Ingo's machine "only" had 120 cores, and he said
> 
>     fomalhaut:~> time cat /proc/cpuinfo  >/dev/null
>     real    0m2.689s
> 
> for the bad serial case, so yeah, it looks "a bit" better than it was ;)

OK, so may I queue it up?

I don't think I can get that to work substantially faster anyway ...

Thanks,
Rafael