[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1142766D-212C-47CF-8400-89616715BCF8@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 14:39:26 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Amy Wiles <amy.l.wiles@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/rapl: Do not load in a guest
On December 4, 2015 2:14:46 PM PST, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 09:51:02AM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:22:56 +0100
>> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Also, yuck @ powercap/intel_rapl.c for doing rdmsr_on_cpu() +
>> > wrmsr_on_cpu() all over the place.
>> Can you please be more specific? is the concern related to the
>> overhead of IPI? I am doing these calls based on MSR CPU scope and
>> consider the fact that access is less frequent.
>
>Yeah, its just offensive to do an IPI to read a value, then twiddle a
>few bits on the value and then IPI again to store the value.
>
>I know its low freq, and that MSR access is slow, but *groan*.
Yes, for that it would be better to invoke a common routine to do all the accesses on the target CPU. MSR accesses may be slow, but IPIs are way slower.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and formatting.
--
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