linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks

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: <56BB93BB.5050405@linaro.org>
Date:	Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:47:07 -0800
From:	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update
 callbacks

On 02/09/2016 07:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> >> I think additional hooks such as enqueue/dequeue would be needed in
>>> >> RT/DL. The task tick callbacks will only run if a task in that class is
>>> >> executing at the time of the tick. There could be intermittent RT/DL
>>> >> task activity in a frequency domain (the only task activity there, no
>>> >> CFS tasks) that doesn't happen to overlap the tick. Worst case the task
>>> >> activity could be periodic in such a way that it never overlaps the tick
>>> >> and the update is never made.
>> >
>> > So if I'm reading this correctly, it would be better to put the hooks
>> > into update_curr_rt/dl()?

That should AFAICS be sufficient to avoid stalling. It may be more than
is required as that covers more than just enqueue/dequeue but I'm not
sure offhand.

>
> If done this way, I guess we may pass rq_clock_task(rq) as the time
> arg to cpufreq_update_util() from there and then the cpu_lock() call
> I've added to this prototype won't be necessary any more.

Is it rq_clock_task() or rq_clock()? The former can omit irq time so may
gradually fall behind wall clock time, delaying callbacks in cpufreq.

thanks,
Steve