linux-kernel - Re: [RFCv7 PATCH 03/10] sched: scheduler-driven cpu frequency selection

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: <1792311.cuUNhUde5n@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 22:08:48 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Ricky Liang <jcliang@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFCv7 PATCH 03/10] sched: scheduler-driven cpu frequency selection

On Thursday, February 25, 2016 10:28:37 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 04:55:57AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > +static void dummy(void *info) {}
> > > +
> > > +static int cpufreq_sched_stop(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct gov_data *gd = policy->governor_data;
> > > +	int cpu;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * The schedfreq static key is managed here so the global schedfreq
> > > +	 * lock must be taken - a per-policy lock such as policy->rwsem is
> > > +	 * not sufficient.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	mutex_lock(&gov_enable_lock);
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * The governor stop path may or may not hold policy->rwsem. There
> > > +	 * must be synchronization with the slow path however.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	mutex_lock(&gd->slowpath_lock);
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Stop new entries into the hot path for all CPUs. This will
> > > +	 * potentially affect other policies which are still running but
> > > +	 * this is an infrequent operation.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	static_key_slow_dec(&__sched_freq);
> > > +	enabled_policies--;
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Ensure that all CPUs currently part of this policy are out
> > > +	 * of the hot path so that if this policy exits we can free gd.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	preempt_disable();
> > > +	smp_call_function_many(policy->cpus, dummy, NULL, true);
> > > +	preempt_enable();
> > 
> > I'm not sure how this works, can you please tell me?
> 
> I think it relies on the fact that rq->lock disables IRQs, so if we've
> managed to IPI all relevant CPUs, it means they cannot be inside a
> rq->lock section.
> 
> Its vile though; one should not spray IPIs if one can avoid it. Such
> things are much better done with RCU. Sure sync_sched() takes a little
> longer, but this isn't a fast path by any measure.

I see, thanks!

BTW, when cpufreq_update_util() callbacks are removed, I use synchronize_rcu()
to wait for the running ones, but would it be better to use synchronize_sched()
in there instead?

Thanks,
Rafael