linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits

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: <20161121114802.GB3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2016 12:48:02 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
        Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@....com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle.linux@...il.com>, tkjos@...gle.com,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition
 rate limits

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 05:00:16PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21-11-16, 12:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I think it should be replaced by a value provided by the driver. It
> > makes sense to have a rate-limit in so far as that it doesn't make sense
> > to try and program the hardware faster than it can actually change
> > frequencies and/or have a programming cost amortization. And this very
> > clearly is a driver specific thing.
> 
> We already have something called as transition_latency for that (though it isn't
> used much currently).
> 
> > It however doesn't make sense to me to fudge with this in order to
> > achieve ramp up/down differences.
> 
> So if a platform, for example, can do DVFS in say 100-500 us, then the scheduler
> should try to re-evaluate frequency (and update it) after that short of a
> period? Wouldn't that scheme waste lots of time doing just freq updates? And
> that's the primary reason why cpufreq governors have some sort of sampling-rate
> or rate-limit until now.

Dunno.. there's of course the cost amortization, but by the time we've
reached sugov_should_update_freq() most of the 'expensive' parts have
already been done from the scheduler's POV and its once again down to
the driver.