linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: use common aperfmperf_khz_on

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 24 Jun 2017 01:03:49 -0400
From:   Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: use common aperfmperf_khz_on_cpu() to calculate
 KHz using APERF/MPERF

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Len Brown wrote:
>> +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
>> +#include <linux/math64.h>
>> +#include <linux/percpu.h>
>> +#include <linux/smp.h>
>> +
>> +struct aperfmperf_sample {
>> +     unsigned int khz;
>> +     unsigned long jiffies;
>> +     u64 aperf;
>> +     u64 mperf;
>
> Nit. Please write these in tabular fashion:
>         unsigned        int khz;
>         unsigned long   jiffies;
>         u64             aperf;
>         u64             mperf;

sure, no problem -- I agreed that looks better.

But it seems there is some inconsistency about this style nit --
even in this directory.  If there is consensus going forward,
would it make sense for coding-style.rst and checkpatch.pl
to squawk about this, so you don't have to?


>> +};
>> +
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct aperfmperf_sample, samples);
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * aperfmperf_snapshot_khz()
>> + * On the current CPU, snapshot APERF, MPERF, and jiffies
>> + * unless we already did it within 10ms
>> + * calculate kHz, save snapshot
>> + */
>> +static void aperfmperf_snapshot_khz(void *dummy)
>> +{
>> +     u64 aperf, aperf_delta;
>> +     u64 mperf, mperf_delta;
>> +     struct aperfmperf_sample *s = &get_cpu_var(samples);
>
> This is invoked via a smp function call, so you want
>
>      this_cpu_ptr(samples)
>
> here.

done. thanks!

>> +     /* Don't bother re-computing within 10 ms */
>> +     if (time_before(jiffies, s->jiffies + HZ/100))
>> +             goto out;
>
> That way you can spare the gotos and simply return

happy to remove the gotos, thanks!

>> index a5ce0bbe..cfc6220 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
>> @@ -883,6 +883,19 @@ static inline bool policy_has_boost_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>  }
>>  #endif
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
>> +extern unsigned int aperfmperf_khz_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu);
>> +static inline unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)

> ... having cpu as int and unsigned int is not really consistent.

True.  the SMP code uses int cpu, while cpufreq_policy.cpu is an unsigned int.
I'll use "int cpu".

> Please don't add arch specific crap in general headers.
>
> The simple way to avoid that is to have a weak function and have an arch
> override for it. If that does not work because the cpufreq stuff must be
> built as a module, then you still can avoid CONFIG_X86 and have something
> like CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_FOO.

Thanks -- this is not modular code, and so yes, __weak works -- hadn't
had occasion to use it before...
Attached is the incremental diff responding to your comments, in case
that is convenient.
I'll re-send this series with this patch updated in a sec.

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center

View attachment "git.diff" of type "text/plain" (2614 bytes)