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]

Date:	Wed, 10 Feb 2016 23:12:05 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	"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 Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 02/10/2016 01:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> What matters to us is the difference between the current time and the
>> time we previously took a sample and there shouldn't be too much
>> difference between the two in that respect.
>
> Sorry, the reference to wall clock time was unnecessary. I just meant it
> can lose time, which could cause cpufreq updates to be delayed during
> irq heavy periods.
>
>> Both are good enough IMO, but I can update the patch to use rq_clock()
>> if that's preferred.
>
> I do believe rq_clock should be used as workloads such as heavy
> networking could spend a significant portion of time in interrupts,
> skewing rq_clock_task significantly, assuming I understand it correctly.

OK, I'll send an update, then.

Thanks,
Rafael