linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/RFT] [PATCH 02/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional frequency invariant accounting

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]

Date:   Fri, 18 May 2018 09:36:40 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] [PATCH 02/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional
 frequency invariant accounting

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:28 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 06:56:37PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Srinivas Pandruvada
>
>> > What will happen if we look at all core turbo as max and cap any
>> > utilization above this to 1024?
>>
>> I was going to suggest that.
>
> To the basic premise behind all our frequency scaling is that there's a
> linear relation between utilization and frequency, where u=1 gets us the
> fastest.
>
> Now, we all know this is fairly crude, but it is what we work with.
>
> OTOH, the whole premise of turbo is that you don't in fact know what the
> fastest is, and in that respect setting u=1 at the guaranteed or
> sustainable frequency makes sense.
>
> The direct concequence of allowing clipping is that u=1 doesn't select
> the highest frequency, but since we don't select anything anyway
> (p-code does that for us) all we really need is to have u=1 above that
> turbo activation point you mentioned.
>
> For parts where we have to directly select frequency this obviously
> comes apart.
>
> However; what happens when the sustainable freq drops below our initial
> 'max'? Imagine us dropping below the all-core-turbo because of AVX. Then
> we're back to running at u<1 at full tilt.
>
> Or for mobile parts, the sustainable frequency could drop because of
> severe thermal limits. Now I _think_ we have the possibility for getting
> interrupts and reading the new guaranteed frequency, so we could
> re-guage.
>
> So in theory I think it works, in practise we need to always be able to
> find the actual max -- be it all-core turbo, AVX or thermal constrained
> frequency. Can we do that in all cases?

We should be, but unfortunately that's a dynamic thing.

For example, the AVX limit only kicks in when AVX instructions are executed.

> I need to go back to see what the complains against Vincent's proposal
> were, because I really liked the fact that it did away with all this.

That would be the best way to deal with this mess, I agree.