linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/11] cpufreq: governor: Use common mutex for dbs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 5 Feb 2016 04:06:17 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/11] cpufreq: governor: Use common mutex for dbs_data protection

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 04-02-16, 17:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>> > On 04-02-16, 00:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>> >>
>> >> Every governor relying on the common code in cpufreq_governor.c
>> >> has to provide its own mutex in struct common_dbs_data.  However,
>> >> those mutexes are never used at the same time
>> >
>> > Why do you think so? I thought they can always be used in parallel.
>> >
>> > Consider 2 or more policies, one can have ondemand as the governor,
>> > whereas other one can have conservative.
>> >
>> > If CPUs go online/offline or if governors are switching in parallel,
>> > then cpufreq_governor_dbs() can very much run in parallel for ondemand
>> > and conservative.
>> >
>> > Or am I missing something here ?
>>
>> Well, so perhaps the changelog is inaccurate.
>>
>> However, what's wrong with using a single mutex then?
>
> You are killing the possibility of running the code faster. Consider
> this:
> - A 16 policy system with N CPUs in every policy (IBM has something
>   similar only :) )..
> - 4 policies using ondemand, 4 using conservative, 4 using powersave
>   and 4 with performance.
> - Now if we try to change governors for all of them in parallel, only
>   one will be done at a time and others have to wait for this
>   BIG-kernel lock.

And why is this a big problem, actually?  Why do we want the switching
of governors to be that efficient?

Thanks,
Rafael