linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V2 1/6] cpufreq: Replace "max_transition_latency" with "dynamic

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: <20170715050828.GA9760@light.dominikbrodowski.net>
Date:   Sat, 15 Jul 2017 07:08:28 +0200
From:   Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 1/6] cpufreq: Replace "max_transition_latency" with
 "dynamic_switching"

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 12:06:24AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2017 01:11:58 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Dominik Brodowski
> > <linux@...inikbrodowski.net> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 06:19:53PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 7:40 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >> > There is no limitation in the ondemand or conservative governors which
> > >> > disallow the transition_latency to be greater than 10 ms.
> > >> >
> > >> > The max_transition_latency field is rather used to disallow automatic
> > >> > dynamic frequency switching for platforms which didn't wanted these
> > >> > governors to run.
> > >> >
> > >> > Replace max_transition_latency with a boolean (dynamic_switching) and
> > >> > check for transition_latency == CPUFREQ_ETERNAL along with that. This
> > >> > makes it pretty straight forward to read/understand now.
> > >>
> > >> Well, using CPUFREQ_ETERNAL for that on the driver side is still not
> > >> particularly straightforward IMO, so maybe add a
> > >> "no_dynamic_switching" to the driver structure and set it to "true"
> > >> for the one driver in question?
> > >
> > > IIRC it's not just one driver which sets the latency to CPUFREQ_ETERNAL, and
> > > where dynamic switching might be harmful or at least lead to undefined
> > > behavior.
> > 
> > OK
> > 
> > Still, though, using CPUFREQ_ETERNAL to indicate the "no dynamic
> > switching" condition is somewhat convoluted, so why don't we have a
> > flag to *explicitly* say that instead?
> > 
> > Do you know which drivers they are or is it just all drivers that use
> > CPUFREQ_ETERNAL?
> 
> Well, after the $subject patch it effectively is all drivers that use
> CPUFREQ_ETERNAL anyway, so it looks like we actually can do a complete
> switch-over.

Exactly. But lets take a quick look at the drivers ussing CPUFREQ_ETERNAL:

Using CPUFREQ_ETERNAL, as policy-setting drivers:

- intel_pstate.c - for the intel_pstate driver, which defers to the hardware
  to do frequency selection.

- longrun.c - hardware-based frequency selection.

=> Those drivers are not interested in kernel-based dynamic frequency
selection anyway.


Using CPUFREQ_ETERNAL as a fallback if transition_latency is unknown:
- arm_big_little.c
- arm_big_little_dt.c
- cpufreq-dt.c
- imx6q-cpufreq.c
- spear_cpufreq.c

=> As it seems to be an error case, it seems best to bail out on the
safe side and disallow dynamic frequency scaling. Platform experts might
know better, though.


Using CPUFREQ_ETERNAL unconditionally:
- cpufreq-nforce2.c - over a decade old driver; has a commented-out hack
  to mdelay(10ms) after each frequency transition. This smells like it might
  be unsafe to do dynamic switching more often than that.

- elanfreq.c - Has udelay(1ms+10ms) in transition path, so the same terms
  and conditions seem to apply.

- gx-suspmod.c - works by a mechanism which reminds me of CPU frequency
  throttling, but chipset- and not CPU-based.

- pmac32-cpufreq.c - for some models, it sets latency to ETERNAL. In some
  frequency switchign code, it has mdelay(10ms) calls.

- speedsstep-smi.c - this case was discussed previously.

=> For those drivers, dynamic frequency scaling should not be enabled IMO.


- sa1100-cpufreq.c and
- sa1110-cpufreq.c - If I remember correctly, those drivers were used for
  fast user-space based frequency scaling in the past. 

=> For these two drivers, enabling DFVS might be an option.


- sh-cpufreq.c - looks fast, but I have no clue.

- unicore2-cpufreq.c - same.

=> For those drivers, I have no clue. So to be on the safe side, I'd opt for
dynamic frequency scaling to be set to off.


To summarize: At first, I'd propose a *complete* switch-over from
CPUFREQ_ETERNAL to setting the flag "no DVFS" you have proposed. Then, one
might discuss with the maintainers of individual drivers/platforms on
whether to relax this rule for a few of those drivers (sa11x0, sh-cpufreq,
unicore2-cpufreq and the drivers using CPUFREQ_ETERNAL as a fallback).

Best,
	Dominik

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)