linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] cpufreq, intel_pstate, set max_sysfs_pct and min_sysfs

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: <001001d1014f$2613efe0$723bcfa0$@net>
Date:	Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:26:00 -0700
From:	"Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@...us.net>
To:	"'Prarit Bhargava'" <prarit@...hat.com>
Cc:	"'Kristen Carlson Accardi'" <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'Viresh Kumar'" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@...us.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] cpufreq, intel_pstate, set max_sysfs_pct and min_sysfs_pct on governor switch

On 2015.10.07 15:06 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 07, 2015 05:31:25 PM Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>> On 10/07/2015 02:52 PM, Doug Smythies wrote:
>>> On 2015.10.07 08:46 Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2015 11:40 AM, Doug Smythies wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do we agree or disagree that the root issue seems to be (from your test)?:
>>>>>
>>>>> \#  echo 100 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/intel_pstate/min_perf_pct
>>>>>
>>>>> [   21.483436] store_min_perf_pct[453] min_sysfs_pct = 100
>>>>> [   21.489373] store_min_perf_pct[456] min_perf_pct = 100
>>>>> [   21.495203] store_min_perf_pct[459] min_perf_pct = 100
>>>>> [   21.501050] store_min_perf_pct[462] min_perf_pct = 100
>>>>
>>>> Yep, and it appears to be done by default in Fedora & RHEL :/ ... the issue is
>>>> still the same IMO that min_sysfs_pct & max_sysfs_pct are not cleared on a
>>>> governor switch.
>>> 
>>> Clearing them will break some other things. For example, and as
>>> shown in my original reply, resume from suspend.
>>> 
>>> Why? Because, at least on my computer, the governor is changed to
>>> "performance" during suspend, and the "powersave" governor is
>>> restored sometime during resume. The users wants the settings they had
>>> before the suspend.
>>> 
>> Looking at this in more detail after having tested on a Intel(R) Core(TM)
>> i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz in Fedora and RHEL.
>> 
>> I have a feeling that the switch you're seeing (poweersave->performance, suspend
>> ... resume, performance->powersave) is occurring in userspace, and not as a
>> result of the kernel.
Agreed. It is pm-suspend doing it.

>>  IMO if userspace changes the governor, all bets are off
>> on maintaining max_sysfs_pct and min_sysfs_pct.
>> 
>> Here's something I cannot figure out (because I do not have an Ubuntu install).
>>  *Why* is Ubuntu making the governor switch during suspend/resume?  Is it
>> because of archaic brokeness they were trying to paper over?

>> That's not limited to Ubuntu, pm-utils has been doing that forever.

Agreed. This in pm-utils, and not limited to Ubuntu.
We can ignore this issue if everyone wants, but I can envision bug reports.

> I have no idea why has it been doing that, though.  I guess the reason
> was to "speed up" PM transitions (in case it started when you were in a
> low-frequency P-state and then there was no time to bump it up before
> things got too far).

I have no idea either, but the stated theory seems sound.


--
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/