| 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: <55B8A3F2.8030809@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:59:14 +0800
From: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@...el.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"mnipxh@....com" <mnipxh@....com>,
"yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Add scaling frequency range support
hi, Rafael
thanks for you reply.
On 2015年07月29日 08:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 12:53:33 PM Pan Xinhui wrote:
>> hi, Viresh
>> thanks for your reply :)
>> On 2015年07月28日 12:29, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 28-07-15, 11:32, Pan Xinhui wrote:
>>>> From: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@...el.com>
>>>>
>>>> Userspace at most time do cpufreq tests very much inconveniently.
>>>> Currently they have to echo min and max cpu freq separately like below:
>>>> echo 480000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
>>>> echo 2240000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
>>>>
>>>> Add scaling_freq_range cpufreq attr to support userspace's demand.
>>>> Therefore it's easier for testers to write readable scripts like below:
>>>> echo 480000-2240000 >
>>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_freq_range
>>>
>>> I don't think this brings any good change, we already have support for
>>> that with min/max freqs and I don't see how scripts can be less
>>> readable with that.
>>>
>> yes, min/max are supported, however it is inconvenient. sometime it's very easy to cause obscure bugs.
>> For example, some one might write a script like below.
>> echo 480000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
>> echo 960000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
>> .....//other works
>> echo 1120000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_min_freq
>> echo 2240000 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq
>> ...//other works
>>
>> But it did not work when we echo 112000 to min-freq, as the current max freq is smaller than it.
>> It's hard to figure it out in a big script... we have many such scripts.
>
> Fix them, then, pretty please.
>
of course we will fix them. :)
> And adding this attribute is not going to magically fix them, is it?
>
yes, this patch can not fix them without changing the script. BUT I have another patch which could magically fix them. :)
These two attribute files are very tricky. they are related with each other.
Not like some other attribute file in other part of kernel, for example, proc/sys/fs/file-max.
As the file-min is always zero. It's very reasonable to only support file-max attribute file.
The sequence we echoing value to min/max_freq is very important. Maybe we can also assume they have *state*.
Just like a developer writes a buf to a file. he should do in this way below.
fp = fopen(..)
=> fwrite(...)
=> fclose(...)
The script I mentioned above did not follow the right sequence. when script wants to set the min higher, we need set the max first to avoid min > max issue...
So max/min_freq have *state*. just like TCP Three-way handshake, SYN, ACK&SYN, ACK. the sequence(this is so-called state) is very important.
Now I want to offer a non-state attribute to user-space :)
This is a design/engineering problem. It's okay for kernel to not offer such attribute. But user-space will do more work.
For example, In the worst case, we need system call four times.
read min/max_freq (system call two times)
might set min or max freq first to avoid min > max issue (system call one time)
set min/max a new value (system call one time)
What if we offer *set freq range* attribute? just once. :)
set freq range (system call one time)
>From performance point, It's a good idea to offer such attribute.
There is another reason for why it's good to apply this patch.
If cpufreg range is 480000-960000, we call it powersave, 480000-2240000 is normal, 1920000-2240000 is performance.
Assume current cpufreq range is powersave, then user want to set it to performance because user wants to play a 3D game.
BUT user have to set it to normal first, then set it to performance because min(performance) > max(powersave).....
I don't know how people(end-user) would think about such behavior.... why we must be back to normal first, then performance?
As for the patch I mentioned above which could magically fix them.
The solution is: change store_scaling_max_freq and store_scaling_min_freq sysfs callback, let them have *state*.
Always keep the value from user-space.
patch like:
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 8772346..00e6965 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -615,6 +615,14 @@ static ssize_t show_scaling_cur_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
struct cpufreq_policy *new_policy);
+static void
+cpufreq_get_user_policy_freq(struct cpufreq_real_policy *user_policy,
+ struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
+{
+ policy->min = user_policy->min;
+ policy->max = user_policy->max;
+}
+
/**
* cpufreq_per_cpu_attr_write() / store_##file_name() - sysfs write access
*/
@@ -622,21 +630,20 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
static ssize_t store_##file_name \
(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, const char *buf, size_t count) \
{ \
- int ret, temp; \
+ int ret; \
struct cpufreq_policy new_policy; \
\
ret = cpufreq_get_policy(&new_policy, policy->cpu); \
if (ret) \
return -EINVAL; \
\
+ cpufreq_get_user_policy_freq(&policy->user_policy, &new_policy);\
ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &new_policy.object); \
if (ret != 1) \
return -EINVAL; \
\
- temp = new_policy.object; \
- ret = cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy); \
- if (!ret) \
- policy->user_policy.object = temp; \
+ policy->user_policy.object = policy->object; \
+ ret = cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy); \
\
return ret ? ret : count; \
}
Thanks
xinhui
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
--
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