linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] ondemand governor: dynamic cpufreq scaling with different CPUs

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, 10 Aug 2011 09:59:33 -0700
From:	Venki Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Yung, Winson W" <winson.w.yung@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
	"Kanigeri, Hari K" <hari.k.kanigeri@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] ondemand governor: dynamic cpufreq scaling with
 different CPUs

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> wrote:
> Re: software vs hardware coordination
>
> Speaking for Intel, everything we make, from hand-sets to supercomputers
> supports hardware coorination.
>
> Think about it -- if we did not, then we would not be able
> to support a legacy OS that doesn't know how to do SW coordination.
>
> HW coordiation is the simplest thing for the SW because
> SW doesn't have to know anything at all about topology constraints.
> It is also the simplest thing for the BIOS, which doesn't have
> to correctly describe topology.
>
> Yes, there is an MSR bit that the BIOS can flip to disable
> HW coordination.  90% of the time that bit is set it is a BIOS bug.
> eg. the bit is set, but the BIOS fails to properly set up the
> ACPI tables to properly enable SW coordination, resulting
> in a system with really strange performance issues.
>
> Indeed, I proposed before, and I will propose again that
> the underlying ACPI _PSD support behind SW coordination
> be completely removed from Linux.
>
> Venki,
> I recall that you mentioned one platform that depends on it --
> and I'd  like to understand that issue and address it with a quirk
> rather than expose all systems to BIOS bugs due to bogus _PSD support.
>

Agree. Addressing this as a quirk would be fine. The processor that
needs it is E74xx series, IIRC.

Thanks,
Venki

> Winston,
> Your system is running in SW coordination mode?
> What do you see if you run with the patch below?
> I'd be intersted to see the output from adpidump for your system.
>
> thanks,
> -Len Brown
> Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
> ---
> diff --git a/include/acpi/pdc_intel.h b/include/acpi/pdc_intel.h
> index 552637b..d081595 100644
> --- a/include/acpi/pdc_intel.h
> +++ b/include/acpi/pdc_intel.h
> @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@
>
>  #define ACPI_PDC_EST_CAPABILITY_SWSMP  (ACPI_PDC_SMP_C1PT | \
>                                         ACPI_PDC_C_C1_HALT | \
> -                                        ACPI_PDC_SMP_P_SWCOORD | \
>                                         ACPI_PDC_SMP_P_HWCOORD | \
>                                         ACPI_PDC_P_FFH)
>
>
--
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/