| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200909041119.06979.trenn@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:19:05 +0200
From: Thomas Renninger <trenn@...e.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 10/14] x86: generic aperf/mperf code.
On Thursday 03 September 2009 15:21:55 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Move some of the aperf/mperf code out from the cpufreq driver thingy
> so that other people can enjoy it too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
> Cc: Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
> Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
> Cc: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
> Cc: cpufreq@...r.kernel.org
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 12 ++++++++
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 41
+++++++++--------------------
> 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> @@ -1000,4 +1000,16 @@ extern void start_thread(struct pt_regs
> extern int get_tsc_mode(unsigned long adr);
> extern int set_tsc_mode(unsigned int val);
>
> +struct aperfmperf {
> + u64 aperf, mperf;
> +};
> +
> +static inline void get_aperfmperf(struct aperfmperf *am)
> +{
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF));
> +
> + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_APERF, am->aperf);
> + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_MPERF, am->mperf);
> +}
> +
> #endif /* _ASM_X86_PROCESSOR_H */
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -243,23 +243,12 @@ static u32 get_cur_val(const struct cpum
> return cmd.val;
> }
>
> -struct perf_pair {
> - union {
> - struct {
> - u32 lo;
> - u32 hi;
> - } split;
> - u64 whole;
> - } aperf, mperf;
> -};
> -
> /* Called via smp_call_function_single(), on the target CPU */
> static void read_measured_perf_ctrs(void *_cur)
> {
> - struct perf_pair *cur = _cur;
> + struct aperfmperf *am = _cur;
>
> - rdmsr(MSR_IA32_APERF, cur->aperf.split.lo, cur->aperf.split.hi);
> - rdmsr(MSR_IA32_MPERF, cur->mperf.split.lo, cur->mperf.split.hi);
> + get_aperfmperf(am);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -278,19 +267,17 @@ static void read_measured_perf_ctrs(void
> static unsigned int get_measured_perf(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> unsigned int cpu)
> {
> - struct perf_pair readin, cur;
> + struct aperfmperf readin, cur;
> unsigned int perf_percent;
> unsigned int retval;
>
> if (smp_call_function_single(cpu, read_measured_perf_ctrs, &readin,
1))
> return 0;
>
> - cur.aperf.whole = readin.aperf.whole -
> - per_cpu(msr_data, cpu).saved_aperf;
> - cur.mperf.whole = readin.mperf.whole -
> - per_cpu(msr_data, cpu).saved_mperf;
> - per_cpu(msr_data, cpu).saved_aperf = readin.aperf.whole;
> - per_cpu(msr_data, cpu).saved_mperf = readin.mperf.whole;
> + cur.aperf = readin.aperf - per_cpu(msr_data, cpu).saved_aperf;
> + cur.mperf = readin.mperf - per_cpu(msr_data, cpu).saved_mperf;
> + per_cpu(msr_data, cpu).saved_aperf = readin.aperf;
> + per_cpu(msr_data, cpu).saved_mperf = readin.mperf;
>
> #ifdef __i386__
> /*
> @@ -305,8 +292,8 @@ static unsigned int get_measured_perf(st
> h = max_t(u32, cur.aperf.split.hi, cur.mperf.split.hi);
You still use struct perf_pair split/hi/lo members in #ifdef __i386__
case which you deleted above.
> shift_count = fls(h);
>
> - cur.aperf.whole >>= shift_count;
> - cur.mperf.whole >>= shift_count;
> + cur.aperf >>= shift_count;
> + cur.mperf >>= shift_count;
> }
>
> if (((unsigned long)(-1) / 100) < cur.aperf.split.lo) {
Same here, possibly still elsewhere.
Is this only x86_64 compile tested?
Thomas
> @@ -321,14 +308,14 @@ static unsigned int get_measured_perf(st
> perf_percent = 0;
>
> #else
> - if (unlikely(((unsigned long)(-1) / 100) < cur.aperf.whole)) {
> + if (unlikely(((unsigned long)(-1) / 100) < cur.aperf)) {
> int shift_count = 7;
> - cur.aperf.whole >>= shift_count;
> - cur.mperf.whole >>= shift_count;
> + cur.aperf >>= shift_count;
> + cur.mperf >>= shift_count;
> }
>
> - if (cur.aperf.whole && cur.mperf.whole)
> - perf_percent = (cur.aperf.whole * 100) / cur.mperf.whole;
> + if (cur.aperf && cur.mperf)
> + perf_percent = (cur.aperf * 100) / cur.mperf;
> else
> perf_percent = 0;
>
>
> --
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
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