linux-kernel - Re: kernel 3.7+ cpufreq regression on AMD system running as dom0

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]

Message-ID: <50FD3E93.70407@canonical.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:11:47 +0000
From:	Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Andre Przywara <andre@...rep.de>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: kernel 3.7+ cpufreq regression on AMD system running as dom0

On 01/21/2013 12:42 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:22:18PM +0000, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> So for having the "check for sensible BIOS" in mainline I refreshed
>> the patch (fixed the bit test, and actually tested it this time) and
>> also added some hopefully sensible explanation to it (attached
>> below).
>>
>> Should I send it to acpi lists or would that have to go via an Andre?
>
> Maybe Rafael could pick it up?
>
>>
>> -Stefan
>>
>>  From 6e2fc8291c91339123a37162382d8b08b50867ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com>
>> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:17:00 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: Check MSR valid bit before using P-state frequencies
>>
>> To fix incorrect P-state frequencies which can happen on
>> some AMD systems f594065faf4f9067c2283a34619fc0714e79a98d
>>    "ACPI: Add fixups for AMD P-state figures"
>> introduced a quirk to obtain the correct values by reading
>> from AMD specific MSRs.
>>
>> This did cause a regression when running a kernel using that
>> quirk under Xen which does (currently) not pass on the contents
>> of the HW but 0.
>
> Actually this should say "does not currently pass through MSR accesses
> to baremetal" or similar.

Ok, that sounds much better.

>
> And this bit you mean is actually bit 63:
>
> "63: PstateEn. Read-write. 1=The P-state specified by this MSR is valid.
> 0=The P-state specified by this MSR is not valid. The purpose of this
> register is to indicate if the rest of the P-state information in the
> register is valid after a reset; it controls no hardware."
>
> in the MSRC001_00[68:64] P-State [4:0] Registers.

Darn, yes.

>
>> And this seems to cause a failure to initialize
>> the ondemand governour (hard to say for sure as all P-states
>> appear to run at the same frequency).
>>
>> While this should also be fixed in the hypervisor (to allow
>> a guest to read that MSR), this patch is intended to work
>> around the issue in the meantime. In discussion it turned out
>> that indeed real HW/BIOSes may choose to not set the valid bit
>> and thus mark the P-state as invalid. So this could be considered
>> a fix for broken BIOSes that also works around the issue on Xen.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@...onical.com>
>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # v3.7..
>> ---
>>   drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 3 +++
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
>> index 836bfe0..41f4bdac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c
>> @@ -340,6 +340,9 @@ static void amd_fixup_frequency(struct
>> acpi_processor_px *px, int i)
>>   	if ((boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x10 && boot_cpu_data.x86_model < 10)
>>   	    || boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x11) {
>>   		rdmsr(MSR_AMD_PSTATE_DEF_BASE + index, lo, hi);
>> +		/* Bit 63 indicates whether contents are valid */
>> +		if (!(hi & 0x80000000))
>
> You can make this a lot more explicit:
>
> 		if (!(hi & BIT(31)))
> 			return;
>

True, ok, so let me respin the whole thing and re-send it.

-Stefan
> This way
>
> 1) you're sure you're testing the correct bit and
> 2) any reviewer can know on the spot which bit it is about.
>
>> +			return;
>>   		fid = lo & 0x3f;
>>   		did = (lo >> 6) & 7;
>>   		if (boot_cpu_data.x86 == 0x10)
>
> Thanks.
>

--
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/