| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1459440600.4569.70.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:10:00 -0700
From: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Jörg Otte <jrg.otte@...il.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>
Subject: Re: [intel-pstate driver regression] processor frequency very high
even if in idle
On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 17:43 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 05:25:18 PM Jörg Otte wrote:
> > 2016-03-31 13:42 GMT+02:00 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>:
> > > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 11:05:56 AM Jörg Otte wrote:
> > >
> > > [cut]
> > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, works for me.
> > > >
> > > > CPUID(7): No-SGX
> > > > CPU Avg_MHz Busy% Bzy_MHz TSC_MHz
> > > > - 11 0.66 1682 2494
> > > > 0 11 0.60 1856 2494
> > > > 1 6 0.34 1898 2494
> > > > 2 13 0.82 1628 2494
> > > > 3 13 0.87 1528 2494
> > > > CPU Avg_MHz Busy% Bzy_MHz TSC_MHz
> > > > - 6 0.58 963 2494
> > > > 0 8 0.83 957 2494
> > > > 1 1 0.08 984 2494
> > > > 2 10 1.04 975 2494
> > > > 3 3 0.35 934 2494
> > > >
> > >
>
> [cut]
>
> > >
> >
> > No, this patch doesn't help.
>
> Well, more work to do then.
>
> I've just noticed a bug in this patch, which is not relevant for the
> results,
> but below is a new version.
>
> > CPUID(7): No-SGX
> > CPU Avg_MHz Busy% Bzy_MHz TSC_MHz
> > - 8 0.32 2507 2495
> > 0 13 0.53 2505 2495
> > 1 3 0.11 2523 2495
> > 2 1 0.06 2555 2495
> > 3 15 0.59 2500 2495
> > CPU Avg_MHz Busy% Bzy_MHz TSC_MHz
> > - 8 0.33 2486 2495
> > 0 12 0.50 2482 2495
> > 1 5 0.22 2489 2495
> > 2 1 0.04 2492 2495
> > 3 15 0.59 2487 2495
>
> Please apply the patch below and take a (1s or so) trace from the
> pstate_sample
> tracepoint (under /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/power/ on my
> systems).
>
Jorg,
If you want to know how to trace
# cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/
# echo 1 > events/power/pstate_sample/enable
# echo 1 > events/power/cpu_frequency/enable
# cat trace
> Then please apply the revert instead of it and take a trace from that
> tracepoint
> again and send both of the traces to me.
>
> ---
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] intel_pstate: Do not set utilization update hook too
> early
>
> The utilization update hook in the intel_pstate driver is set too
> early, as it only should be set after the policy has been fully
> initialized by the core. That may cause intel_pstate_update_util()
> to use incorrect data and put the CPUs into incorrect P-states as
> a result.
>
> To prevent that from happening, make intel_pstate_set_policy() set
> the utilization update hook instead of intel_pstate_init_cpu() so
> intel_pstate_update_util() only runs when all things have been
> initialized as appropriate.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> @@ -1103,7 +1103,6 @@ static int intel_pstate_init_cpu(unsigne
> intel_pstate_sample(cpu, 0);
>
> cpu->update_util.func = intel_pstate_update_util;
> - cpufreq_set_update_util_data(cpunum, &cpu->update_util);
>
> pr_debug("intel_pstate: controlling: cpu %d\n", cpunum);
>
> @@ -1122,18 +1121,29 @@ static unsigned int intel_pstate_get(uns
> return get_avg_frequency(cpu);
> }
>
> +static void intel_pstate_set_update_util_hook(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> + cpufreq_set_update_util_data(cpu, &all_cpu_data[cpu]-
> >update_util);
> +}
> +
> +static void intel_pstate_clear_update_util_hook(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> + cpufreq_set_update_util_data(cpu, NULL);
> + synchronize_sched();
> +}
> +
> static int intel_pstate_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> {
> if (!policy->cpuinfo.max_freq)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> + intel_pstate_clear_update_util_hook(policy->cpu);
> +
> if (policy->policy == CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE &&
> policy->max >= policy->cpuinfo.max_freq) {
> pr_debug("intel_pstate: set performance\n");
> limits = &performance_limits;
> - if (hwp_active)
> - intel_pstate_hwp_set(policy->cpus);
> - return 0;
> + goto out;
> }
>
> pr_debug("intel_pstate: set powersave\n");
> @@ -1163,6 +1173,9 @@ static int intel_pstate_set_policy(struc
> limits->max_perf = div_fp(int_tofp(limits->max_perf_pct),
> int_tofp(100));
>
> + out:
> + intel_pstate_set_update_util_hook(policy->cpu);
> +
> if (hwp_active)
> intel_pstate_hwp_set(policy->cpus);
>
> @@ -1187,8 +1200,7 @@ static void intel_pstate_stop_cpu(struct
>
> pr_debug("intel_pstate: CPU %d exiting\n", cpu_num);
>
> - cpufreq_set_update_util_data(cpu_num, NULL);
> - synchronize_sched();
> + intel_pstate_clear_update_util_hook(cpu_num);
>
> if (hwp_active)
> return;
> @@ -1455,8 +1467,7 @@ out:
> get_online_cpus();
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> if (all_cpu_data[cpu]) {
> - cpufreq_set_update_util_data(cpu, NULL);
> - synchronize_sched();
> + intel_pstate_clear_update_util_hook(cpu);
> kfree(all_cpu_data[cpu]);
> }
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists