linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

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: <CAKohpokowK6ybYd8aDUdfFYsnzoc5VAKsuPSkfxoDqJ3k+FwGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:51:33 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org, robin.randhawa@....com,
	Steve.Bannister@....com, Liviu.Dudau@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors

On 4 February 2013 19:39, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 07:28:16PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> All files which are directly present in cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/ folder. I am
>> not talking about governor tunables but policy tunables. Things like
>> scaling_[min]max_freq are policy tunables.
>
> No, on x86 those are the P-states frequencies. They're defined by the
> hardware.

A question we need to answer: What is "policy"?

For me, "policy" is the hardware policy for a group of cpus, defined by the
hardware. We call them P-states. But these are strictly per policy (i.e. per
cpu group sharing clock line).

So, if we have two packages with two cpus each, we will have two copies
of these P-states and every other file/directory in cpu/cpu*/cpufreq.
One common copy would be shared between cpu/cpu[0-1]/cpufreq
directory and other one between cpu/cpu[2-3]/cpufreq.

>> Policies don't have a name associated with them and so
>> cpu/cpufreq/policies doesn't make any sense. Rather one policy is
>> related to multiple cpus and its tunables are linked in all the cpus
>> that belong to it, like scaling_[min]max_freq.
>
> Then do the following:
>
> cpu/cpufreq/policies/
> |-> policy0
>     |-> min_freq
>     |-> max_freq
>     |-> affected_cpus
>     ...

We correlate things with cpus rather than policies and so the current directory
structure of cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/*** is the best suited ones.

> or whatever needs to be a flexible interface for multi-policy cpufreq
> support.

The multi policy part is already well implemented, we are talking about governor
per policy here.

> Remember: once you do those, they're more or less cast in stone so take
> your time and do the design right, do not hurry those.

Yes, and that's why cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/ondemand/*** suits the best, with exactly
the same logic that went for P-states or cpufreq-stats.

>> But then we will get governors tunables in cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/ instead
>> of cpu/cpufreq/ . Will that not break userspace for other systems?
>
> What's wrong with having both? The cpu/cpufreq/ governor will set the
> system-wide governor and the cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/ will add the different
> policies.

Hmm.. confused..
Consider two systems:
- A dual core system, with cores sharing clocks.
- A dual cluster system (dual core per cluster), with separate clocks
per cluster.

Where will you keep governor directories for both of these configurations?

We need to select only one... cpu/cpufreq doesn't suit the second case at all
as we need to use ondemand governor for both the clusters but with separate
tunables. And so a single cpu/cpufreq/ondemand directory wouldn't solve the
issue.

--
viresh
--
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/