| 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: <20130130164614.GC30559@balto.lan>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:46:14 +0100
From: Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@...aro.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
swarren@...dotorg.org, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, Joseph Lo <josephl@...dia.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/4] cpufreq: ondemand: call dbs_check_cpu only when
necessary
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 09:21:41PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 30 January 2013 18:30, Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@...aro.org> wrote:
> > Modify ondemand timer to not resample CPU utilization if recently
> > sampled from another SW coordinated core.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@...aro.org>
>
> I might be wrong but i have some real concerns over this patch.
>
> This is what i believe is your idea:
> - because a cpu can sleep, create timer per cpu
> - then check load again only when no other cpu in policy->cpus has
> checked load within sampling time interval.
>
> Correct?
Yes.
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 3 ++
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h | 1 +
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> > index 8393d6e..46f96a4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> > @@ -289,6 +289,9 @@ second_time:
> > }
> > mutex_unlock(&dbs_data->mutex);
> >
> > + /* Initiate timer time stamp */
> > + cpu_cdbs->time_stamp = ktime_get();
>
> We have updated time_stamp only for policy->cpu's cdbs.
Yes, see below.
> > for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus)
> > dbs_timer_init(dbs_data, j, *sampling_rate);
> > break;
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> > index 93bb56d..13ceb3c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> > @@ -216,23 +216,23 @@ static void od_check_cpu(int cpu, unsigned int load_freq)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -static void od_dbs_timer(struct work_struct *work)
> > +static void od_timer_update(struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info, bool sample,
> > + struct delayed_work *dw)
> > {
> > - struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info =
> > - container_of(work, struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s, cdbs.work.work);
> > unsigned int cpu = dbs_info->cdbs.cpu;
> > int delay, sample_type = dbs_info->sample_type;
> >
> > - mutex_lock(&dbs_info->cdbs.timer_mutex);
> > -
> > /* Common NORMAL_SAMPLE setup */
> > dbs_info->sample_type = OD_NORMAL_SAMPLE;
> > if (sample_type == OD_SUB_SAMPLE) {
> > delay = dbs_info->freq_lo_jiffies;
> > - __cpufreq_driver_target(dbs_info->cdbs.cur_policy,
> > - dbs_info->freq_lo, CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
> > + if (sample)
> > + __cpufreq_driver_target(dbs_info->cdbs.cur_policy,
> > + dbs_info->freq_lo,
> > + CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
> > } else {
> > - dbs_check_cpu(&od_dbs_data, cpu);
> > + if (sample)
> > + dbs_check_cpu(&od_dbs_data, cpu);
> > if (dbs_info->freq_lo) {
> > /* Setup timer for SUB_SAMPLE */
> > dbs_info->sample_type = OD_SUB_SAMPLE;
> > @@ -243,11 +243,49 @@ static void od_dbs_timer(struct work_struct *work)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - schedule_delayed_work_on(smp_processor_id(), &dbs_info->cdbs.work,
> > - delay);
> > + schedule_delayed_work_on(smp_processor_id(), dw, delay);
> > +}
>
> All good until now.
>
> > +
> > +static void od_timer_coordinated(struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info_local,
> > + struct delayed_work *dw)
> > +{
> > + struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info;
> > + ktime_t time_now;
> > + s64 delta_us;
> > + bool sample = true;
> > +
>
> --start--
>
> > + /* use leader CPU's dbs_info */
> > + dbs_info = &per_cpu(od_cpu_dbs_info, dbs_info_local->cdbs.cpu);
> > + mutex_lock(&dbs_info->cdbs.timer_mutex);
> > +
> > + time_now = ktime_get();
> > + delta_us = ktime_us_delta(time_now, dbs_info->cdbs.time_stamp);
> > +
> > + /* Do nothing if we recently have sampled */
> > + if (delta_us < (s64)(od_tuners.sampling_rate / 2))
> > + sample = false;
> > + else
> > + dbs_info->cdbs.time_stamp = time_now;
> > +
>
> --end--
>
> Instead of two routines (this and the one below), we can have one and can
> put the above code in the if (coordinated cpus case). That will save some
> redundant code.
Ok but then you have two dbs_infos mixing up in the same code and it
start to become harder to read (first version was with a single function
I think).
> Another issue that i see is: Current routine will be called from timer handler
> of every cpu and so above calculations will happen for every cpu. Here, you
> are taking the diff of last timestamp of cpu "x" with cpu "x" current timestamp,
> but what you should have really done is the diff b/w current timestamp with
> the timestamp of last change on any cpu in policy->cpus.
Isn't that how it works now? The current cpu ktime is not checked
against its own, but against the "leader" cpu (dbs_info_local->cdbs.cpu),
that's why it's initialized only for the first.
Maybe I should have used dbs_info_leader/dbs_info instead of
dbs_info_local/dbs_info.
> Over that, timestamp for all cpu's isn't initialized early in the code
> at GOV_START.
>
> Am i correct?
As above.
Fabio
> > + od_timer_update(dbs_info, sample, dw);
> > mutex_unlock(&dbs_info->cdbs.timer_mutex);
> > }
> >
> > +static void od_dbs_timer(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > + struct delayed_work *dw = to_delayed_work(work);
> > + struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info =
> > + container_of(work, struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s, cdbs.work.work);
> > +
> > + if (dbs_sw_coordinated_cpus(&dbs_info->cdbs)) {
> > + od_timer_coordinated(dbs_info, dw);
> > + } else {
> > + mutex_lock(&dbs_info->cdbs.timer_mutex);
> > + od_timer_update(dbs_info, true, dw);
> > + mutex_unlock(&dbs_info->cdbs.timer_mutex);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
--
Fabio Baltieri
--
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