| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:31:03 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Waldemar Rymarkiewicz <waldemar.rymarkiewicz@...il.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Waldemar Rymarkiewicz <waldemarx.rymarkiewicz@...el.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Bartholomae, Thomas" <t.bartholomae@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: conservative: Fix requested_freq handling
On Monday, October 15, 2018 11:34:33 AM CEST Waldemar Rymarkiewicz wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 23:10, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 6:06:08 PM CEST Waldemar Rymarkiewicz wrote:
> > > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 09:47, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 5:11 PM Waldemar Rymarkiewicz
> > > > <waldemar.rymarkiewicz@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Waldemar Rymarkiewicz <waldemarx.rymarkiewicz@...el.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > The governor updates dbs_info->requested_freq only after increasing or
> > > > > decreasing frequency. There is, however, an use case when this is not
> > > > > sufficient.
> > > > >
> > > > > Imagine, external module constraining cpufreq policy in a way that policy->max
> > > >
> > > > Is the "external module" here a utility or a demon running in user space?
> > >
> > > No, this is a driver that communicates with a firmware and makes sure
> > > CPU is running at the highest rate in specific time.
> > > It uses verify_within_limits and update_policy, a standard way to
> > > constraint cpufreq policy limits.
> > >
> > > > > @@ -136,10 +135,10 @@ static unsigned int cs_dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > > > > requested_freq = policy->min;
> > > > >
> > > > > __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, requested_freq, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
> > > > > - dbs_info->requested_freq = requested_freq;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > out:
> > > > > + dbs_info->requested_freq = requested_freq;
> > > >
> > > > This will have a side effect when requested_freq is updated before the
> > > > thresholds checks due to the policy_dbs->idle_periods < UINT_MAX
> > > > check.
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't that be avoided?
> > >
> > > I would say we should.
> > >
> > > A hardware design I use is running 4.9 kernel where the check does not
> > > exist yet, so there is not a problem.
> > > Anyway, the check policy_dbs->idle_periods < UINT_MAX can change
> > > requested_freq either to requested_freq = policy->min or
> > > requested_freq -= freq_steps;. The first case will not change anything
> > > for us as policy->max=min=cur. The second, however, will force to
> > > update freq which is definitely not expected when limits are set to
> > > min=max. Simply it will not go out here:
> > >
> > > if (load < cs_tuners->down_threshold) {
> > > if (requested_freq == policy->min)
> > > goto out; <---
> > > ...
> > > }
> > >
> > > Am I right here? If so, shouldn't we check explicitly
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * If requested_freq is out of range, it is likely that the limits
> > > * changed in the meantime, so fall back to current frequency in that
> > > * case.
> > > */
> > > if (requested_freq > policy->max || requested_freq < policy->min)
> > > requested_freq = policy->cur;
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > +* If the the new limits min,max are equal, there is no point to process further
> > > +*/
> > > +
> > > +if (requested_freq == policy->max && requested_freq == policy->min)
> > > + goto out;
> >
> > If my understanding of the problem is correct, it would be better to simply
> > update dbs_info->requested_freq along with requested_freq when that is found
> > to be out of range. IOW, something like the appended patch (untested).
>
> Yes, this will solve the original problem as well.
>
> I think there could also be a problem with policy_dbs->idle_periods <
> UINT_MAX check. It it's true it can modify requested_freq (
> requested_freq -= freq_steps) and further it can result in a change of
> the freq, requested_freq == policy->max is not anymore true. I would
> expect governor not to change freq (requested_freq) when
> policy->max=policy->min=policy->cur.
Well, that's because there is a bug in that code IMO. It should never
decrease requested_freq below policy->min in particular.
Please find a patch with that fixed below.
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
@@ -80,8 +80,10 @@ static unsigned int cs_dbs_update(struct
* changed in the meantime, so fall back to current frequency in that
* case.
*/
- if (requested_freq > policy->max || requested_freq < policy->min)
+ if (requested_freq > policy->max || requested_freq < policy->min) {
requested_freq = policy->cur;
+ dbs_info->requested_freq = requested_freq;
+ }
freq_step = get_freq_step(cs_tuners, policy);
@@ -92,7 +94,7 @@ static unsigned int cs_dbs_update(struct
if (policy_dbs->idle_periods < UINT_MAX) {
unsigned int freq_steps = policy_dbs->idle_periods * freq_step;
- if (requested_freq > freq_steps)
+ if (requested_freq > policy->min + freq_steps)
requested_freq -= freq_steps;
else
requested_freq = policy->min;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists