| 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: <20100406021323.GC3630@balbir.in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 07:43:23 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mike Chan <mike@...roid.com>
Cc: menage@...gle.com, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: cpuacct: Track cpuusage per cpu frequency
* Mike Chan <mike@...roid.com> [2010-04-05 12:33:24]:
> New file: cpuacct.cpufreq when CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_STATS is enabled.
>
> cpuacct.cpufreq accounts for cpu time per-cpu frequency, time is exported
> in nano-seconds
>
> We do not know the cpufreq table size at compile time.
> So a new config option CONFIG_CPUACCT_CPUFREQ_TABLE_MAX is intruduced,
> to determine the cpufreq table per-cpu in the cpuacct struct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Chan <mike@...roid.com>
> ---
> init/Kconfig | 5 +++
> kernel/sched.c | 99 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/init/Kconfig b/init/Kconfig
> index eb77e8c..e1e86df 100644
> --- a/init/Kconfig
> +++ b/init/Kconfig
> @@ -534,6 +534,11 @@ config CGROUP_CPUACCT
> Provides a simple Resource Controller for monitoring the
> total CPU consumed by the tasks in a cgroup.
>
> +config CPUACCT_CPUFREQ_TABLE_MAX
> + int "Max CPUFREQ table size"
> + depends on CGROUP_CPUACCT && CPU_FREQ_TABLE
> + default 32
> +
> config RESOURCE_COUNTERS
> bool "Resource counters"
> help
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 528a105..a0b56b5 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -71,6 +71,7 @@
> #include <linux/debugfs.h>
> #include <linux/ctype.h>
> #include <linux/ftrace.h>
> +#include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>
> #include <asm/tlb.h>
> #include <asm/irq_regs.h>
> @@ -8817,6 +8818,11 @@ struct cgroup_subsys cpu_cgroup_subsys = {
> * (balbir@...ibm.com).
> */
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_STAT
> +/* The alloc_percpu macro uses typeof so we must define a type here. */
> +typedef struct { u64 usage[CONFIG_CPUACCT_CPUFREQ_TABLE_MAX]; } cpufreq_usage_t;
> +#endif
> +
> /* track cpu usage of a group of tasks and its child groups */
> struct cpuacct {
> struct cgroup_subsys_state css;
> @@ -8824,6 +8830,10 @@ struct cpuacct {
> u64 __percpu *cpuusage;
> struct percpu_counter cpustat[CPUACCT_STAT_NSTATS];
> struct cpuacct *parent;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_STAT
> + /* cpufreq_usage is a pointer to an array of u64-types on every cpu */
> + cpufreq_usage_t *cpufreq_usage;
> +#endif
> };
>
> struct cgroup_subsys cpuacct_subsys;
> @@ -8856,6 +8866,10 @@ static struct cgroup_subsys_state *cpuacct_create(
> if (!ca->cpuusage)
> goto out_free_ca;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_STAT
> + ca->cpufreq_usage = alloc_percpu(cpufreq_usage_t);
> +#endif
> +
> for (i = 0; i < CPUACCT_STAT_NSTATS; i++)
> if (percpu_counter_init(&ca->cpustat[i], 0))
> goto out_free_counters;
> @@ -8888,6 +8902,74 @@ cpuacct_destroy(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cgrp)
> kfree(ca);
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_STAT
> +static int cpufreq_index;
> +static int cpuacct_cpufreq_notify(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> + void *data)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *table;
> +
> + if (val != CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE)
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* Update cpufreq_index with current speed */
> + table = cpufreq_frequency_get_table(freq->cpu);
> + policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(freq->cpu);
> + ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_target(policy, table,
> + cpufreq_quick_get(freq->cpu),
Since you've already done a cpufreq_cpu_get, can't you directly
dereference policy->cur here?
> + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L, &cpufreq_index);
The code is unclear
> + cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static struct notifier_block cpufreq_notifier = {
> + .notifier_call = cpuacct_cpufreq_notify,
> +};
> +
> +static __init int cpuacct_init(void)
> +{
> + return cpufreq_register_notifier(&cpufreq_notifier,
> + CPUFREQ_TRANSITION_NOTIFIER);
> +}
> +
> +module_init(cpuacct_init);
> +
> +static int cpuacct_cpufreq_show(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft,
> + struct cgroup_map_cb *cb)
> +{
> + int i;
> + unsigned int cpu;
> + char buf[32];
> + struct cpuacct *ca = cgroup_ca(cgrp);
> + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *table =
> + cpufreq_frequency_get_table(smp_processor_id());
> +
> + for (i = 0; table[i].frequency != CPUFREQ_TABLE_END; i++) {
> + u64 total = 0;
> +
> + if (table[i].frequency == CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID)
> + continue;
> +
> + for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
Why do we care about all present cpus? A comment would be nice, is
this an ABI thing? Do we care about data of offline cpus, etc.
> + cpufreq_usage_t *cpufreq_usage;
> +
> + cpufreq_usage = per_cpu_ptr(ca->cpufreq_usage, cpu);
> + table = cpufreq_frequency_get_table(cpu);
> +
> + total += cpufreq_usage->usage[i];
> + }
> +
> + snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%d", table[i].frequency);
> + cb->fill(cb, buf, total);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> static u64 cpuacct_cpuusage_read(struct cpuacct *ca, int cpu)
> {
> u64 *cpuusage = per_cpu_ptr(ca->cpuusage, cpu);
> @@ -9003,6 +9085,12 @@ static struct cftype files[] = {
> .name = "stat",
> .read_map = cpuacct_stats_show,
> },
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_STAT
> + {
> + .name = "cpufreq",
> + .read_map = cpuacct_cpufreq_show,
> + },
> +#endif
> };
>
> static int cpuacct_populate(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *cgrp)
> @@ -9031,6 +9119,17 @@ static void cpuacct_charge(struct task_struct *tsk, u64 cputime)
>
> for (; ca; ca = ca->parent) {
> u64 *cpuusage = per_cpu_ptr(ca->cpuusage, cpu);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_STAT
> + cpufreq_usage_t *cpufreq_usage =
> + per_cpu_ptr(ca->cpufreq_usage, cpu);
> +
> + if (cpufreq_index > CONFIG_CPUACCT_CPUFREQ_TABLE_MAX)
> + printk_once(KERN_WARNING "cpuacct_charge: "
> + "cpufreq_index: %d exceeds max table "
> + "size\n", cpufreq_index);
WARN_ON_ONCE() would be more readable, IMHO
> + else
> + cpufreq_usage->usage[cpufreq_index] += cputime;
> +#endif
> *cpuusage += cputime;
> }
>
> --
> 1.7.0.1
>
--
Three Cheers,
Balbir
--
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