linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll

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: <CAJZ5v0ikayycQs1m2rTa8WRLZ5sQ5q2SQVZkDuuy6GOE=dJFQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:42:57 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Ilsche <thomas.ilsche@...dresden.de>,
        Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpuidle: poll_state: Add time limit to poll_idle()

On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 13:04 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> On x86 we don't have to use that time_check_counter thing,
>> sched_clock()
>> is really cheap, not sure if it makes sense on other platforms.
>
> Are you sure? I saw a 5-10% increase in CPU use,
> for a constant query rate to a memcache style
> workload, with v3 of this patch.

I think I know what's going on.

Increased utilization with the same amount of work per time unit (and
I guess that's the case given the lack of specific information about
the workload) means more non-idle time with respect to total time and
that implies reduced frequency (eg. less turbo).

Now, combine that with the Doug's observation that limiting the rate
of local_clock() invocations in the poll_idle() loop reduces power
draw during experiments on his system significantly and with the other
one that in both cases local_lock() ends up being rdtsc() (most
likely).

What this implies to me is that invoking rdtsc() at a high rate on
multiple logical CPUs in parallel causes chips to get hot.  Actually
that may be so hot that they hit power/thremal (eg. RAPL) limits and
get their frequency reduced as a result.

Limiting the rate of local_clock() invocations obviously avoids this issue.