| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4237890.zlzv5C60QP@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 14:22:20 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"Joel Fernandes (Google.)" <joelaf@...gle.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] schedutil: Allow cpufreq requests to be made even when kthread kicked
On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:42:05 PM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> > On 22-05-18, 13:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> So below is my (compiled-only) version of the $subject patch, obviously based
> >> on the Joel's work.
> >>
> >> Roughly, what it does is to move the fast_switch_enabled path entirely to
> >> sugov_update_single() and take the spinlock around sugov_update_commit()
> >> in the one-CPU case too.
[cut]
> >
> > Why do you assume that fast switch isn't possible in shared policy
> > cases ? It infact is already enabled for few drivers.
I hope that fast_switch is not used with devfs_possible_from_any_cpu set in the
one-CPU policy case, as that looks racy even without any patching.
> OK, so the fast_switch thing needs to be left outside of the spinlock
> in the single case only. Fair enough.
That would be something like the patch below (again, compiled-only).
---
kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
+++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
@@ -92,9 +92,6 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(str
!cpufreq_can_do_remote_dvfs(sg_policy->policy))
return false;
- if (sg_policy->work_in_progress)
- return false;
-
if (unlikely(sg_policy->need_freq_update))
return true;
@@ -103,25 +100,41 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(str
return delta_ns >= sg_policy->freq_update_delay_ns;
}
-static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
- unsigned int next_freq)
+static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
+ unsigned int next_freq)
{
- struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
-
if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq)
- return;
+ return false;
sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq;
sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
- if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
- next_freq = cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(policy, next_freq);
- if (!next_freq)
- return;
+ return true;
+}
- policy->cur = next_freq;
- trace_cpu_frequency(next_freq, smp_processor_id());
- } else {
+static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
+ unsigned int next_freq)
+{
+ struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
+
+ if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq))
+ return;
+
+ next_freq = cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(policy, next_freq);
+ if (!next_freq)
+ return;
+
+ policy->cur = next_freq;
+ trace_cpu_frequency(next_freq, smp_processor_id());
+}
+
+static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
+ unsigned int next_freq)
+{
+ if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq))
+ return;
+
+ if (!sg_policy->work_in_progress) {
sg_policy->work_in_progress = true;
irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work);
}
@@ -307,7 +320,13 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct u
sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = 0;
}
- sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
+ if (sg_policy->policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
+ sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, time, next_f);
+ } else {
+ raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
+ sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
+ }
}
static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time)
@@ -367,7 +386,10 @@ sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_d
if (sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time)) {
next_f = sugov_next_freq_shared(sg_cpu, time);
- sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
+ if (sg_policy->policy->fast_switch_enabled)
+ sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, time, next_f);
+ else
+ sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
}
raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
@@ -376,13 +398,18 @@ sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_d
static void sugov_work(struct kthread_work *work)
{
struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = container_of(work, struct sugov_policy, work);
+ unsigned int next_freq;
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sg_policy->update_lock, flags);
+ next_freq = sg_policy->next_freq;
+ sg_policy->work_in_progress = false;
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sg_policy->update_lock, flags);
mutex_lock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
- __cpufreq_driver_target(sg_policy->policy, sg_policy->next_freq,
+ __cpufreq_driver_target(sg_policy->policy, next_freq,
CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
mutex_unlock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
-
- sg_policy->work_in_progress = false;
}
static void sugov_irq_work(struct irq_work *irq_work)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists