linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Update cached "current frequency" when limits change

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <59665FE1.3070305@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:44:01 -0700
From:   Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Update cached "current frequency"
 when limits change

On 07/11/2017 10:24 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11-07-17, 19:24, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>> Currently, the governor calculates the next frequency, set the current CPU
>> frequency (policy->cur). It also assumes the current CPU frequency doesn't
>> change if the next frequency isn't calculated again and hence caches the
>> "current frequency".
>>
>> However, this isn't true when CPU min/max frequency limits are changed. So,
>> there's room for the CPU frequency to get stuck at the wrong level if the
>> calculated next frequency doesn't change across multiple limits updates.
>>
>> Fix this by updating the cached "current frequency" when limits changes the
>> current CPU frequency.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>>   kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 6 ++++++
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> index 076a2e3..fe0b2fb 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> @@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>>
>>   	busy = sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu);
>>
>> +	raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
>>   	if (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL) {
>>   		next_f = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
>>   	} else {
>> @@ -240,6 +241,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>>   			next_f = sg_policy->next_freq;
>>   	}
>>   	sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
>> +	raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
>
> We wouldn't allow locking here until the time we can :)
>
>>   }
>>
>>   static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time)
>> @@ -637,10 +639,14 @@ static void sugov_stop(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>   static void sugov_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>   {
>>   	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = policy->governor_data;
>> +	unsigned long flags;
>>
>>   	if (!policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
>>   		mutex_lock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
>>   		cpufreq_policy_apply_limits(policy);
>> +		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sg_policy->update_lock, flags);
>> +		sg_policy->next_freq = policy->cur;
>> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sg_policy->update_lock, flags);
>>   		mutex_unlock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
>>   	}
>
> Did you miss the following part which is after the closing } here ?
>
>          sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
>
> As this should already take care of the problem you are worried about. Or did I
> misunderstood your problem completely ?
>
Yup, I did. Thanks! Ignore patch please.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project